Accident and Emergency Services

Baroness Greengross: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the Audit Commission report on accident and emergency services.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government have taken note of the recent Audit Commission report. We launched a £118 million strategy Reforming Emergency Care to reorganise emergency care in the NHS. Reducing long waits in A&E is at the heart of this ground-breaking strategy. The strategy and the significant investment attached to it reflect the priority that the Government place on improving access to emergency care.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the Government's investment in A&E services and in other aspects of the NHS. However, the majority of people attending A&E departments are elderly, and for such people waiting times are often a life and death situation. Given that fact, does the Minister agree that it is important that older people, who often suffer from multiple symptoms and pathologies, should be seen in A&E by professionals who understand and are qualified to manage their various needs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I certainly hope that, as part of the reform of emergency care and the implementation of our national service framework for older people, NHS trusts will ensure that services in A&E and others parts of a hospital are sensitive to the needs of older people. The patient forums which are shortly to be established in every trust will also provide a strong consumer view for the trust board to consider. I am sure that the needs of older people will figure largely in those discussions.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister reassure the House that the triage system of determining those in most urgent need of treatment still operates in accident and emergency departments, irrespective of age?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. In the proposals on emergency care, one of the key recommendations is that in future patients should be streamed. A&E patients are currently expected to wait in a single queue. Often, that means that those with the least serious problems find themselves continually put at the back of the queue when patients with more serious problems arrive—and that is understandable. The new emergency care policy suggests that at the triage stage people are separated. Those in need of urgent treatment will be fast-tracked, but those who require non-urgent treatment will be seen by a dedicated group of staff. Research undertaken by Warwick University suggests that by organising services in that way we can reduce overall waiting times for everyone.

Lord Peston: My Lords, my noble friend will perhaps not be aware of the fact that I spent eight hours in A&E last Sunday. I hasten to assure your Lordships that I was not the potential patient; I was simply the person looking after another potential patient. I hope my noble friend will agree that seven or eight hours is a very long period of time to spend in A&E. But the main problem, on which I should be interested to know the Government's view, is that no one knows what is going on. One is just sitting there, with, in this case, a young person—waiting, and waiting, and waiting. The psychological damage seems to me to be enormous—not merely to the patient, but in this case to me!

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the psychological problems affecting my noble friend as a result of his wait in A&E. I agree with him. Long waits are very difficult in stressful circumstances. They are made all the more burdensome if people are not kept informed as to the reason for them. That is why establishing a new system whereby effectively patients will be streamed will enable people to be seen more quickly. I accept that we need to do more to inform patients and their relatives and friends as to how long it is before they are likely to be seen. Our target is that by 2004 the maximum waiting time for the whole process in A&E will be four hours. Although my noble friend regrettably had to wait eight or more hours, in terms of reduced waiting times we are on course for an interim target of 75 per cent by 2002.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister realise that it was in 1995 that the Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit completed its definitive report on the number of lives that would be saved if the so-called clot-busting drugs were used for heart attack patients within hours of their attack? How many patients does the Minister think have died because only one-third of our A&E departments come up to the nationally agreed standards? What will he do to ensure that the money that he talks about will not be top-sliced all the way down, so that it barely reaches the A&E departments, as has happened with the money for cancer treatment?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention is that the money will be spent in A&E departments and that it will not be top-sliced. We shall performance-manage the situation to make sure that that happens. As regards drugs, in the national service framework for coronary heart disease we have set a target that, by April 2002, 75 per cent of eligible patients should be receiving thrombolysis within 30 minutes of hospital arrival, and within 20 minutes by 2003. We are making progress, and I am confident that we shall reach those targets.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, as many patients are children, does the Minister agree that in A&E departments there should be more facilities for children and more people who understand their needs?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, anyone who has taken a child to an A&E department can only agree with the noble Baroness. Some hospitals have introduced dedicated facilities for children. They have been aided in that by the modernisation fund that we have introduced, which has already brought additional moneys to 90 per cent of all A&E departments. We are also seeing an increase in the number of child-trained nurses, some of whom could work in A&E departments and ensure that children receive the kind of dedicated service that they require. We clearly need to build on that approach.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware how absolutely splendid the accident and emergency people were at Perth Royal Infirmary when my daughter fell 10 feet off a ladder and the ladder fell on her leg? They dealt with her immediately.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I was very glad to hear that. I only wish that I could claim responsibility for the trust in Perth, but I fear that I cannot. There is no doubt that we have some very high calibre and dedicated staff working in extremely pressurised situations in A&E departments. By increasing our capacity and our staff numbers and, crucially, reorganising the way in which they work, we can relieve some of the pressure on those staff and cut down the waiting times, which we are determined to do.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have made a couple of visits to A&E departments in the recent past. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that staff in A&E departments are properly protected from violent criminals, who come in every Friday and Saturday night, disrupting the work of the departments and intimidating the staff?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the House is glad to see the noble Lord back in his place. I agree with him. NHS staff have been put under intolerable pressure by frightening and revolting behaviour by members of the public. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that we will support hospital management in taking decisive measures to ensure that action is taken against such people and that our staff are not required to cope with the situations that the noble Lord described. There have been a number of encouraging developments, including links with local police services. In some areas, the local police force has a police station in the vicinity of the hospital. We need to build on those initiatives.

Rheumatoid Arthritis: Drugs Appraisal

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following reports of a possible trial of beta interferon drugs for multiple sclerosis sufferers, they would support a clinical trial of anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, following a recommendation from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers of beta interferon and glatiramer acetate to establish whether those drugs might be secured for patients in the NHS in a manner that could be considered cost effective. NICE is currently appraising anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and we anticipate that its guidance will be published in March. We will consider carefully all its recommendations, including any for further research.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I remind him that there are 600,000 sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis in the United Kingdom. It is a very painful and often progressive disease. Many of them cannot get anti-TNF drugs, even though the best clinical judgment in the country prescribes them, because of the shortage of funds in the NHS. Will the Government set up some special funding for that treatment rather than allowing this dreadful suffering to continue?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that rheumatoid arthritis is a distressing illness. Many members of our community suffer a great deal of pain and distress as a result of it. It was because of issues around the anti-TNF drugs that the noble Lord has mentioned that we referred the question to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The purpose of the institute is to give definitive advice on whether a particular drug is clinically effective and cost effective. I expect that the Government and the National Assembly for Wales will receive the outcome of that advice next spring. We must await that moment before any further decisions can be made. I do not believe that a special fund is the answer. We must have a proper process of independent advice so that proper decisions can then be made.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I accept the Minister's points. But does he accept that although for many years traditional treatments such as gold and, more recently, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents have been helpful for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the first really effective treatment to strike at the heart of the disease and to have shown itself as likely to prevent its advance is the anti-tumour necrosis factor? Is it not therefore important that the treatment should be made widely available? At the moment it is subject to the problem of postcode prescribing.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is exactly why we have referred the drugs to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The tradition of the NHS is for postcode prescribing under which a particular drug can be obtained in one part of the country and not in another. The existence of the institute enables independent judgment to be made on the clinical and cost effectiveness of a particular drug. If the institute so advises, there will be uniform provision of the drug across the country. I understand the impatience of patients over NICE reaching its conclusions, but we must await the outcome of the process. At the moment we are in the middle of it.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I too appreciate my noble friend's concern and he will understand my interest in the question. Is it known why more than three times more women than men develop this cruelly devastating condition; and does it not conflict with the founding principles of the National Health Service that postcode rationing can still discriminate between them?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer to the first question is that I am not aware of any specific evidence as to why more women than men should be affected, although I shall draw the noble Lord's question to the attention of those responsible for NHS research and development. On the general point, postcode prescribing is unacceptable in a national health service. That is why we set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The longer that it does its work and the more advice that it gives to the Government, the more we will eradicate postcode prescribing.

Lord Addington: My Lords, if taken sufficiently early, the drug in question can prevent a condition becoming debilitating. Should it not be a basic consideration, whenever any such drugs are considered, whether they can prevent a condition becoming disabling? Should that not be at the front of all of NICE's considerations?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is one of the factors on which NICE will have to make a judgment. Before NICE was introduced, new and innovative drugs were often taken up very slowly. We have already seen that the result of NICE decisions is that, once it has given advice that a drug is likely to be clinically effective and cost effective, take-up in the NHS is quicker. We are also seeing that the initial results of advice given by NICE is considerably to increase the amount that the NHS spends on drugs.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that NICE considers clinical effectiveness only in terms of the cost of the drug? Is it not important to consider the cost of the social care of patients if they are not given the drug and therefore rely on the state for everything? Should that not be a further factor to be considered in the equation?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the point raised by the noble Baroness. However, NICE's approach is fully consistent with what is described in the jargon as a societal perspective. That certainly falls within NICE's responsibility to promote clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness.

Housing Renewal

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to bring forward proposals to assist with housing problems in areas such as east Lancashire, which have large numbers of cheap and substandard terraced houses many of which are standing empty.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, having recently visited east Lancashire, I fully recognise the severity of the housing problems in that area. The Government already support a substantial programme of local government expenditure on private sector housing renewal, and we will soon put legislation before Parliament to allow authorities much greater freedom to develop their strategies.
	My department has also just received a proposal for the creation of a market renewal fund. I cannot, of course, commit the Government to pursuing that approach, but I welcome the work that is being done collectively by local authorities and housing providers in the North and the Midlands on that issue.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and intriguing Answer. The problem is that in many parts of England, the bottom end of the housing market has simply collapsed. Houses can be bought extremely cheaply or, in many cases, are worthless. The Minister is quoted as saying in a local paper, the Pendle Citizen, on 8th November that the sub-region has,
	"consistently missed out on cash from central government and European union regeneration schemes".
	Will he confirm that that is his view? Will he also comment on the fact that in my local authority area of Pendle, where I live, the amount of money available for private sector housing regeneration work was cut by a massive 30 per cent this year compared to last year, and, since the mid-1980s, has fallen by about 70 per cent in cash terms?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, yes, I confirm the quotation. I do not know what are the precise figures for money available for private sector expenditure by local authorities on housing in the area identified by the noble Lord, but I shall write to him about them.
	The overall position is that English local authorities presently provide about £400 million a year for private sector renewal. I accept that in the east Lancashire area, which I visited, local authorities have insufficient money to deal with the range of private sector housing problems—although the problem does not involve just housing but must be considered across the board. The problem involves housing, bringing jobs to the area, providing economic prosperity and working together to try to find solutions. One of the most impressive things I found when I visited six local authority areas in east Lancashire was that they were all working together with the private sector and other statutory providers to seek solutions to what are deep-seated problems.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, to what extent do the Government advise local authorities to consider the parts of their areas that are amply provided with terraced houses that are falling into disrepair and are unused before they give permission for further housing to be built?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the planning system is intended to deal with that issue. In our planning policy, we have sought to promote the idea that local authorities consider housing strategically throughout their area. They should consider what social housing and private sector stock exists and address the housing needs of the community as a whole, so that when they consider which houses in their possession to renovate and which planning permissions to grant, they have a strategic view of the community's needs.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Minister will be aware of the work that my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead—he is a good friend—is doing in Burnley. Perhaps the Minister had Burnley in mind when he mentioned visiting that area. Does he agree with my noble friend Lord Clarke that demolition of houses is a priority and that money should be provided to get the housing catastrophe into some order?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of the good work that my noble friend Lord Clarke is doing in Burnley, and I should like to pay tribute to the amount of time and effort that he has put into his report.
	When one visits east Lancashire—and other parts of the country—it is perfectly plain that there are significant areas in which substantial abandonment of housing is occurring. Once abandonment starts, it destroys communities. In some places, demolition and clearance will be the right course; but not in others. Each place will have a different solution, and the right thing is to identify what is the particular solution for the particular area.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister realise the concern, especially in rural authorities, about the number of new properties that will have to be provided? Will he tell us how the Government will first deal with the 750,000 properties that are lying empty, before forcing authorities to provide far more properties than they require, especially in the green belt?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are conscious that a proper approach must be taken to releasing land for housing. That is why, in national planning guidance PPG 3, we have instituted a policy that brownfield land should be used first, and only if no brownfield land is available should greenfield sites be used.
	The 750,000 empty properties represent an important issue. We have introduced several measures to seek to encourage the owners of empty properties to bring them back into use. Those measures have not been wholly successful, because it is frequently difficult to identify who is the owner of a property and many such properties are in areas in which there is total market failure—that is, a significant number of houses are being abandoned and no one wants to live in the area because there are so many voids.
	The problem of empty properties is not simply about persuading owners to renovate them; it involves precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to in his Question: trying to revive the market—often in the areas of lowest income—to try to provide proper communities.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have reached the 24th minute, and there is another important Question.

Employment Tribunals

Lord McCarthy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make public immediately the full text of the 1998 Survey of Employment Tribunals so that Parliament can judge the case for restricting access to employment tribunals as proposed by the Employment Bill 2001.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, publication of the full report has been delayed because a routing problem with the computer program means that we do not have a complete data set for a number of questions. We are planning to publish the full report and data set in February, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill 2001.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but does he appreciate that he is talking about a piece of research, a telephone survey, which was begun in 1995? Seven years later we do not have a complete data set. I think we should throw it away. But if we do not do that, perhaps we should do it again and in the meantime surely we should not keep quoting it, as we do, or misquoting it, as we have done. It has been misquoted to suggest that what it is telling us is that the workers and employers of this country are rushing to litigation like an avalanche. However, there is no evidence of that except, of course, the evidence of this useless survey. The employers—they apparently have some access to it—say it means that 64 per cent of respondents never approached their employers on the matter. The Government do not say that; the Government say a different thing every time they quote the survey. If we are to find out anything about this matter, and if we are to justify the Bill, for goodness sake publish the survey or tear it up.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain of the question that I am supposed to be answering. I shall make some equally general remarks about the report. I believe that it was prepared in 1998. As I hope I explained, the problem is that these days these surveys are conducted by people who use a computer to direct them to different parts of a question. As a result of the failure of the computer program, we do not have complete data sets for some of the answers, but not all of them. We have used parts of the report where we have full data sets. As regards the statistic to which the noble Lord referred, that is based on robust data. Indeed, when we publish the survey—as I said, it will be published before the Committee stage of the Employment Bill—we shall at the same time deposit a full and sound data set in the ESRC data archive so that people can see how that statistic is derived.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that—if I ask a slightly more precise question to help him—many of the people who these days go to employment tribunals do so because of cases of racial discrimination or sexual harassment? If the Government in Clauses 22 and 23 of the new Bill bring in cost measures that are likely to deter those complainants, if this House is to pass that legislation we shall need more information than we have currently.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, two minor changes have been proposed in terms of costs. Those relate to the fact that the general principle of the Bill is a fair one which already exists; that is, that respondents or applicants who waste time making or defending hopeless cases should face the consequences of their actions. That applies both to applicants and to respondents. We propose that where there are additional costs other than legal costs they should be taken into account and that that can apply to representatives, although not to non-profit-making bodies.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true—

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that the excuse of computer programs not functioning is getting as much credence now as that of "the cheque is in the post"? Is the Minister responsible for computer programs and IT generally in the Government and, if not, will he pass on to whoever is the suggestion that perhaps it might be a good idea to have a root and branch look at all our computers as this excuse has come up on so many occasions?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that there is much evidence over many years under many governments that when governments say there has been a computer problem there almost certainly has been a computer problem. There was in this case. I believe that the survey was carried out by agents for the government. I can only say that what happened was regrettable and we seek constantly to make certain that these incidents do not occur.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not just regrettable but also not particularly funny if workers are not to be allowed to enforce their rights through tribunals? Does he further accept that the research produced for his own department published this year by Burgess, Cropper and Wilson, shows that the increase in the number of tribunal cases has nothing whatever to do with some fever for litigation by British workers; it has to do with changes in the labour force industrial structure and the tribunals' jurisdiction, as stated in the headline to their conclusions? Does he also accept, especially in view of what he said about the competence or incompetence of what has been done with the survey, that this "Mickey Mouse" telephone survey does not invalidate the Burgess research and does nothing—especially when the Government have themselves misrepresented the conclusions in their consultative document—to show that workers have engaged upon some fever of reckless litigation which any trade unionist knows perfectly well is not the case?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that either I or the Government have implied that we are talking about a fever of litigation. There are a number of good reasons why the number of applications to employment tribunals has trebled since 1990. I refer to new employment rights; the effect of specific decisions of the European Court of Justice and certain case-law decisions. However, I do not think that they totally explain the rise. But that is not the issue that we are addressing in this case. We think it is in the interests of all parties, employees, employers and taxpayers, that there should be a proper dialogue in the workplace and that claims, if possible, should be dealt with there rather than be taken to a tribunal. It is not in the interests of anyone—employees, employers or taxpayers—that cases should be taken to tribunals which almost always results in a breakdown of the employment relationship. Through the Bill we seek to remedy what is clearly the situation; namely, that a substantial amount of these claims never go through a grievance procedure. That is the case as regards employers on many occasions and sometimes as regards employees.

Business

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has asked me to draw to the attention of the House a significant correction in Hansard which is to be found in last Friday's Hansard of 16th November at col. 859. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be pleased to note that this was due to a computer error. The topic was a very important one, Europe, and those noble Lords whose offerings were not recorded sufficiently for posterity were the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Heathrow Terminal 5.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Incorporation of provisions of the Treaty of Nice]:

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 20, revising Article 207 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"

Lord Howell of Guildford: Amendment No. 22, which is grouped with other amendments, concerns Article 207(2) of the treaty establishing the European Community. I hope that that is of guidance and help to those following the details of the debate.
	This is one of a series of amendments, several of which concern the new move as embodied in the Treaty of Nice—and therefore will be brought into our legislation should the Bill be approved—for qualified majority voting for certain key appointments and arrangements in the organisation of the European Union's institutions. In this particular case we are concerned with the appointment of the Secretary-General of the General Secretariat, the High Representative for foreign policy and his deputy in the General Secretariat. Members of the Committee will know that in recent years the General Secretariat has expanded somewhat and now covers a wide range of Union activities over the second and third pillars. The role of High Representative for foreign policy has emerged, and it is filled with considerable prominence and ability by Mr Javier Solana.
	We believe—if I may, I shall put reasons before the Committee—that this type of appointment is extremely sensitive and that it is very important that it is handled correctly. We do not consider that it is best settled by the rather crude instrument of qualified majority voting. We do not quite understand why the Government ever signed up to this particular veto abandonment. We say that not only because we consider that vetoes and the ability to cry "stop" are always the most wonderful and best way forward but because, in the matter of appointing such crucial figures in European affairs, we believe that discussion and understanding between the member states is a much healthier way of proceeding than the process of one group of people outvoting another. That is particularly the case as we move into the new pattern of weighting of votes in the Council, which we shall debate later. We do not believe that that is the right way to proceed.
	We need to be extremely careful mainly for the following reason. There is always a danger—a number of assertions and quotations, one of which I shall refer to in a moment, reinforce this point—that the High Representative for foreign policy will drift into acting as Foreign Secretary for a putative entity—that is, the European Union as a type of enlarged, replicated nation. Of course, that can be extremely dangerous.
	In the present case, I consider the High Representative to be a man of vast ability who has done excellent work. I believe that this type of post works best when the person holding it acts as a skilful honest broker or "putter-forward" of positions between disputants or even potential combatants. The contribution made by Mr Solana in, it is hoped, defusing a Macedonia-type situation is considerable. Therefore, the honest broker role is the right one. However, for a number of reasons, it could be extremely dangerous if the holder of the post, having been voted in by qualified majority voting, believed, as some do, that his was a Foreign Minister role.
	First, as I believe we mentioned in earlier debates and as Henry Kissinger observed in recent comments, a Foreign Secretary needs to put forward a foreign policy. In the European case, a foreign policy must be woven together out of the vast complex of the different and diverse viewpoints of the 15 member states. In due course, that number may become 25, or perhaps even 28 if all 13—that is, not only the next 10 countries but the three after that—join. Once that position is reached, the matter is non-negotiable. If Americans, Indians, Japanese or Russians arrive and say, "That is a very interesting viewpoint. Ours is slightly different. Can we reach an agreement?", the answer is that the Foreign Secretary's position, if that is the role that has been taken on by the High Representative elected by QMV, becomes impossible. He will say, "This is the given position. I cannot unravel it. You must take it or leave it".
	Secondly, the whole concept not merely of a common foreign policy, which is what is usually put forward, but of the pattern evolving into a single foreign policy is dangerous because it raises expectations that every single member of the greatly enlarged Union which lies before us—indeed, even of the present Union—is entitled to a say in evolving the policy which the High Representative is supposed to promote.
	Of course, in recent days we have seen the disappointments and difficulties to which that leads. A crisis appears, all types of bilateral alliances and arrangements spring up, often put in place with great subtlety and agility and very rapidly, and, to put the matter crudely, the point is reached where it is not possible to wait for the slowest member of the convoy. Indeed, if one waits too long for the slowest member, the policy never crystallises. No foreign policy emerges, and the type of assistance given recently, for example, by the coalition of members to the United States in forming a coalition to deal with the global attack on terrorism would simply not be forthcoming.
	To put it into the vernacular, everyone expects to be invited to the dinner. When they are not, one ends up not with a feeling of unity and brotherhood among the European states, in which I, for one, passionately believe, but a feeling of crossness among certain states that they have been left out and that somehow the big boys are ganging up against the rest. That view was mentioned by Mr Berlusconi and reported in this morning's newspapers. That is not good for the type of Europe that we want to see and for the kind of European unity that some of us have spent half a lifetime trying to work for.
	Therefore, the whole question of who fills the role is delicate. It needs to be handled by very careful, friendly debate and discussion in good faith and not by the hammer instrument of saying, "Well, we can't discuss it. We'll have a vote and the people with the most votes win". That is not a healthy approach.
	Thirdly, to take another current example, is the question of the posture of the European Union member states in relation to the crucial Israel-Palestine issue. Different member states and, indeed, different parties and groupings inside member states have different views on how pressure should be applied and to which side—that is, Israel or Palestine or both—if we are to reach the dream (I hope that it is more than a dream) or perhaps the attainable goal about which Colin Powell spoke only yesterday of a separate Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace.
	If, by having the wrong person in the post, an EU view is allowed to develop that is in any way one-sided, and if it is not possible to articulate and interweave that view with the evolving policies of Washington, in which America is bound to play a vast and key role in this whole issue whether or not the world likes it—personally, I do like it—then we have not created more stability. We have not opened out the past away from the hideous, endless tit-for-tat killing of the Israel-Palestine situation but have raised further barriers and put further obstacles in the way. That, again, I consider to be dangerous.
	Fourthly, there is the concern, which I do not believe is only in the mind or can be dismissed, that behind the idea of common foreign policy, a common approach in certain situations or the use of Mr Solana as a skilled broker, is a strong impulse to wrap up all foreign policy into a single approach and put it in the first pillar inside the Community. Mr Romano Prodi, who is an invaluable quarry of quotes, said on 14th November—less than a week ago—that he wanted to see a single European Union foreign policy and he wanted it to be under the Commission. He said,
	"as I have said many times in the past and will say again here today, [Europe] will not succeed in contributing to peace and stability in the world, nor will it be able to fill a political role that matches its economic stature, or indeed be accepted in such a role, unless it is united in its actions".
	I believe that that sounds all right in relation to that point. He then goes on to say:
	"This problem will be resolved once and for all only if the necessary adjustments are made and the entire foreign and security policy of the Union is brought inside the Community system".
	That is what we are up against and that is what lies behind the concern which some Members of the Committee may consider fanciful but which I do not. The High Representative and Secretary-General of the Secretariat is a person on whose discretion and skill we rely greatly to prevent that coming about. I do not believe that the Government or any sensible and committed European want to see the entire foreign and security policy of the Union brought inside the Community system. We want a Secretary-General and a High Representative who can resist that. Those are reasons why we are doubtful about the proposal and do not understand why the Government signed up to it.
	I have yet one more reason in this context; namely, that there exists in certain foreign policy discussion circles the view that one cannot really do anything unless one has an army—one needs a military force in order successfully to project influence in the world. That view might have been valid until about 10 years ago, but I suspect that in the knowledge-based age of information technology it no longer applies and that nations or political entities can project their weight in terms of their contribution to global stability without the military attachment. That has been for many years the view of the Europe-builders—it was the view until recently, when there began to be talk of Europe becoming in some senses a military power. We have been told hitherto that that was not happening and that all that was involved was the minor matter of carrying out certain low-intensity, low-profile semi-policing tasks rather than going for a full-blown, fully equipped European army, which would be somehow autonomous from NATO.
	I notice that the Secretary of State for Defence has changed his tune. That makes us a little worried about the role of the High Representative. He is reported in this morning's papers as saying that the new force must move quickly, have heavy-lift air transport and go quickly into combat zones; he also referred to mid-air refuelling and radar-jamming devices. That is far from the low-level humanitarian tasks that we were earlier discussing and it makes one feel even more strongly that there is an old-fashioned doctrine at the heart of much of this thinking. That involves saying, "Yes, there must be a European identity and the weight of Europe must be projected in the world. We must have forces to back that up. That is how we can achieve balance against the hegemony of the United States of America". We believe that that is a false perception and the wrong approach. If there is to be reinforcement of America's efforts, it must involve the strengthening of NATO and that must be done in the spirit of partnership not of duplication and it must not involve rival forces or rival foreign policies. We have seen too much of that—for example, delegations went off to Korea to second-guess and to attempt to outwit the Americans in their handling of that situation. Again and again, the spirit has been one of rivalry rather than of partnership.
	For all of those reasons—there are many more, and noble Lords may point out those that I have overlooked—the matter of who fills the role is crucial. The matter of how the role is chosen is also crucial and requires great delicacy and a careful approach. The introduction of QMV does not seem to us to be consistent with that approach. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has built an extremely elaborate castle on the modest foundations of this amendment. First, I remind him that I was listening again—for the second time in two weeks—to a group of visiting American officials, who began by reminding us that the United States strongly supports a European security and defence policy. As one of them said, "We bought into this after St. Malo". They also said that the United States now sees the NATO relationship as being balanced between a more coherent European security and defence policy and the United States.
	Secondly, my understanding is that the model for the role of High Representative was precisely designed on the role of the NATO Secretary-General and that the intention was that something like that useful model would operate in relation to the High Representative. It was partly for that reason that the first person appointed by the European Union to be High Representative was the serving NATO Secretary-General.
	Thirdly, I turn to the role of QMV in relation to that position and the President of the Commission. As those who were in the previous Conservative government should remember, one reason for the introduction of that approach was the competitive vetoing of nominees for President of the Commission by Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Major. As a result, we lost Ruud Lubbers, who would have been an excellent President of the Commission, and Jean-Luc Dehaene, who might have been a good president, and we found ourselves with Mr Santer instead. There is a good argument for gaining as much as we can in terms of consensus but for preventing the kind of competitive vetoing that unfortunately mars this business.
	We should stick closely to the proposed clause and not wander into questions about the future European army or where we might be in 25 years. The proposal is an entirely helpful step forward.

Lord Williamson of Horton: We are dealing with a simple series of amendments, which relate to a simple series of provisions in the treaty, and we are dealing with a single point—the relevant voting arrangements. In other words, we are concerned with the change from unanimity to QMV in relation to several appointments to European institutions and other bodies, starting with the Secretary-General of the Council, which is the subject of the amendment. We shall later deal with appointments to the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is in his place. Although he apparently has nothing to declare on European affairs except his genius, on the previous occasion on which we discussed the Bill he commented on the pensions of some noble Lords. I am happy to state that I worked for many years in the United Kingdom Civil Service and that I have a pension from the United Kingdom Government. I worked for rather fewer years in European institutions and I have a pension from that source as well. That seems pretty normal to me. I am also a co-chairman of Europe 21.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, who sets some Members of the Committee an excellent example. I trust that it will be followed in the course of our debate.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I add that the noble Lord recognises that he has only to declare his genius—that is to be welcomed.
	I made it clear at Second Reading that my view is that with the Treaty of Nice we have come to the end of the road of changes with regard to unanimity and QMV. It is wise to retain unanimity in relation to several important matters, such as constitutional change, taxation and so on. However, the decisions that we are now discussing—those about appointments—are suitable for QMV and may in some cases reduce the rather undesirable tendency to excessive bargaining about such appointments. There can be advantages in that. So far as concerns the Secretary-General of the Council, especially in his role as High Representative, we have to keep in mind the fact that we are in the intergovernmental sphere. Whatever his method of appointment, he remains fully under the control of the member states.
	There is a wide difference between the types of appointments. Some of them are important, such as that of the Secretary-General of the Council, and others are less important because they are predominantly decided beforehand, such as the appointments to the Committee of the Regions. It is justified to move to QMV in relation to all of those appointments.
	I do not in any way take a doctrinaire view on the question of QMV. We need efficiency and to protect the important interests of member states. The proposed change to the Treaty of Nice does not in any way damage the essential interests of the United Kingdom. I support the change to the treaty and I do not support the amendment.

Lord Biffen: My noble friend Lord Howell, who moved the amendment, highlighted one of the continuing anxieties—not so much what the proposed changes in the treaty imply, but whether ultimately they will lead to further consequences. As has already been said, this debate is being carried out not in a vacuum but against the wishes of Senor Prodi. He is obviously the star turn so far as concerns my noble friend; he is certainly valuable to all of us as a source of quotations. However, no joke is involved. He clearly has in view the completion of the slogan, "Europe: a nation". That involves saying that Europe should have the qualities that are normally associated with a unitary state and that it should have its own foreign policy.
	The question of whether the appointment is made by qualified majority voting or by unanimity is a narrow one. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that it is not a ditch upon which one would want to fight and die. However, the issue touches upon whether a move to qualified majority voting will encourage those who have as an objective a European foreign policy, or whether staying with unanimity will retain the present situation whereby the affairs of the European Union are conducted substantially outside the existing, closely-knit Commission-generated apparatus.
	This debate relates to the enlargement of the European Union. We should apply that test all the time. It is a Union that will accept the applicant states and inevitably, unavoidably and logically Turkey also. It appears to me that in a European Union of such a size we should play the hand of diversity because Europe will become diverse. We are a European Union of many proud, national states, with national interests, able to play those interests to the advantage of the Community generally.
	I speak in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who played so signal a role in developing the Anglo-American relationship. We like to believe that we made that contribution to the European Union. The same may be true of other countries. The enlargement includes Poland. What better country is there to speak to Ukraine and to Russia than a country with Poland's experience? In relation to Turkey, we can consider the set of relationships that will be brought into play in regard to the Middle East, which will be so much more germane because of the events of 11th September.
	That is the Europe that beckons; it is a Europe that is wider and more diverse. In my view, if the role of the Secretary-General did not exist we would still have a satisfactory arrangement for European policies based upon a reconciliation of our joint national interests. That is the shadow behind this debate. Of course, this debate is on a relatively narrow point, but I was delighted to hear my noble friend make his points. I do not know whether he will press the amendment to a Division, but I shall be happy to say that I look to a diverse Europe that does not need this drift towards centralisation. Indeed, it requires that such a drift be reversed.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: It appears to me that qualified majority voting arouses strong feelings that are often based on a misplaced analysis. The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, has just made a cry for diversity, but a European Union of 27 with no qualified majority voting would resemble the medieval Polish parliament where everyone had a veto. I doubt that our Polish friends would thank us for recreating their medieval parliament just as they arrive in the European Union.
	On qualified majority voting for such appointments, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, that unanimity does not always achieve good results. I shall choose my words carefully. The two "least good" Presidents of the Commission in living memory were chosen after a veto by someone. That is not a very happy precedent. Moreover, when qualified majority voting is used in the European Union votes are not required all the time as, frequently, it encourages consensus. It means that one country out of 27 cannot block abusively a nomination.
	I believe that the case for the change to the Treaty of Nice is quite good and I support it. I also consider that what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about the appointment of the High Representative was a confusion of two points. Whether the High Representative is appointed by qualified majority or by unanimity does not affect, one way or the other, his ability or stupidity in relation to exceeding his powers. That simply does not arise. However, there is the matter of whether in exceeding his powers the High Representative is under the control of the member states or not and that relates to whether foreign policy decisions are taken by unanimity or by qualified majority voting. The situation remains that such decisions are taken by unanimity, so the scope for exceeding his powers is slight. In that context I regard the matter of how the High Representative is chosen as an irrelevance.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the powerful arguments that he advanced for having qualified majority voting in the foreign policy area so as to stop a few countries preventing a joint action of the kind currently taking place with the United States. I am not convinced by that argument. I believe that keeping unanimity in the main issues of foreign policy will be necessary.
	Furthermore, I do not agree with the view that foreign policy issues have been sliding towards the Commission. I am well aware of what the President of the Commission has said. Presidents of the Commission have been saying that for years and they have not advanced towards their goal of achieving greater influence in foreign policy. Rather the contrary has happened. In recent years, the foreign policy work of the European Union has moved away from the Commission; not towards it. The Commission has to play a role within that, but it does not direct it. That is the reality.
	When the European Union set up the office of High Representative and appointed a distinguished former Secretary-General of NATO, Mr Solana, it drove a nail into the coffin of the Commission's hopes of controlling foreign policy. That does not mean to say that every President of the Commission from now until eternity will not make speeches saying that he believes that that is a shame and that he wishes it were otherwise.
	The reality is as it is, and with Mr Solana, the servant of the member states, acting intergovernmentally and the dominant figure in the implementation of such foreign policy as the member states agree, I believe that the situation is much more solidly entrenched than before. I argue that the changes to make certain appointments by qualified majority voting are justified. They do not touch on the areas for which I could not support an extension of qualified majority voting; for example, a change to the treaty, an increase in the financial resources of the Community, new member states and taxation. They touch on much less important areas and I believe that the case for the change is a good one.

Lord Tebbit: Any consideration of the merits of qualified majority voting always takes place on the terms of extending the role of QMV. We never have debates on the overall virtues of QMV and of unanimity. That is because there has been no case in the history of the European Union of a move away from the requirement for unanimity back towards QMV. In other words, this is a one-way street.
	Of course, distinguished ex-civil servants from the Foreign Office, who have later served in the European Union, will always come forward to tell us that we are living in the best of all possible worlds, except that this treaty would make just one little improvement to make it even better than the best of all possible worlds. Never, in any circumstances, is the European Union said to have over-reached itself in its extension of its powers. This is not a debate on the merits; it is merely a debate on whether we shall take one further step this week, this year, in this treaty in the same direction. Having said that, on the issue of the appointment of the President of the Commission, there is a good case for unanimity.

A noble Lord: The high commissioner.

Lord Tebbit: The high commissioner, I am sorry. He must carry the absolute confidence of all member states.

A noble Lord: It does not matter.

Lord Tebbit: The noble Lord says that it does not matter. He need not carry—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment is about the Secretary-General and not the President.

Lord Tebbit: That was a slip of the tongue. We will get on to him perhaps a little later. But we can be sure that sooner or later that will come before us.
	On the general issue of the merits of QMV and of unanimity, I say again what I half said in the debate on Second Reading. Those of us who in general take the view that unanimity is a safeguard must also remember that on many issues—not this one—of policy making unanimity is something of a two-edged sword. Once a UK Government say yes to a proposal—such as the Social Chapter—and it goes into the treaty, it would require unanimity of all member states to get it back out again.
	So the unanimity rule can make it impossible for an incoming Parliament, however large its majority in terms of votes or seats, to change something which has been agreed within the Council. Therefore, it leaves more and more areas open to reform—should that be what the British people want—only by the nuclear option of opting out of the Treaty of Rome altogether. It pushes us down that road. We must bear that in mind. But, in general, in cases that are more administrative than consist of policy, there is a strong case for maintaining the rule of unanimity.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: The problem for many of us who have been engaged in discussing these treaties over a long period of time is that we remember some of the things that were said in previous debates. During the discussions on the Amsterdam Treaty, for example, when we dealt with this question of the High Representative for defence and foreign affairs, we were told that it would be all right because he would be appointed by unanimity. Therefore, if we did not like the appointment, Britain would be able to veto it.
	The ratchet moves on. With the European Union everything happens by stealth and by ratchet. The ratchet moves slowly up one and then another until eventually we arrive at the position at which those who form the European Community always wanted to arrive: that is a country called Europe. With that in mind and with the assurances that we were given at earlier times we now wonder why we had the safeguard of unanimity and why we were told that that was a safeguard. We are now told that it does not really matter whether we have unanimity; and qualified majority voting is okay. So that is one of the problems.
	I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I listened with the utmost respect because he has much experience in these matters. But he will forgive us, I am sure, for taking what people say at face value. We cannot get away from the fact that the President of the Commission in his interview with the Independent on 4th February 2000 said:
	"Step by step, the Commission is like a growing government".
	There is no equivocation about that. Mr Prodi, like all Presidents of the Commission, wants to see the powers of the Commission and of European government growing and growing. At least Mr Prodi is honest enough to say what he is about. Unfortunately, other people deny that that is what he is saying he is about. It is about time that we had some straight and truthful talking about what is intended.
	Not everyone reads the new arrangements in the same way. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I am discouraged. I thought that perhaps there was some good in this new arrangement; that perhaps it meant that the Council will take power from the Commission; and that it was trying to arrive at a situation that would cut the Commission down to size, because it is growing, as Mr Prodi says, too big for its boots.
	I had some hope—it seems that I was wrong—that the Council was saying to the Commission, "This is going far enough", and that, "We are going to listen to what Mr Chirac says about the Commission; that it should not grow into a government, but that it should be the civil service of the European Union and the servant of the Council and not its master; and that it should not be the sole organisation and institution that proposes policy". I had some hope that that is what this was about. But unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has had much experience in this area, has disabused me of the marvellous thought that perhaps the whole thing was going to become a little more democratic. So I am disappointed that perhaps I am wrong.
	On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may be wrong. It may be that that is what the governments of the EU intend. They, like so many of us, have been concerned about the Commission accruing power which it should not have. It may be that they have been listening to what we have said. It may be that they want to take power from the Commission and to exercise their considerable power in a more democratic and open way rather than from behind closed doors.
	Those are my thoughts. We are in Committee. This is when we put forward our ideas, our fears and our questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to come down on my side and say that at last the elected representatives will go backwards and regain power from the Commission and not allow it to take more and more power and, indeed, become the government of Europe, as Mr Prodi so wants.

Lord Tomlinson: Perhaps I may sound a warning to my noble friend on the Front Bench. If perchance he were tempted to come down on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, he would create far more problems for those who sit immediately behind him than he might solve.
	The debate has been interesting and wide ranging, but the vast majority of it has borne no relevance to the group of amendments. There are three amendments in the group and they are identical. The only change in the treaty would be the addition of the words "by a qualified majority". The amendments do not deal with Mr Prodi, the Commission, or anyone else.
	Were we to be tempted into dealing with the election of the President of the Commission, I remind members of the Committee that twice in recent years we have been the country that has exercised the veto. I am not sure whether we are more proud of having created the presidency of Mr Jacques Santer or Mr Jacques Delors.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, has put his finger on the point. We are dealing with another example of Euro-creep in that we are discussing the move towards qualified majority voting for the appointment of the High Representative for the common foreign and security policy. I do not know why the European Union has to indulge in the hubris of always putting the word "high" in front of representative. There is a high representative of this, that and the other, which smacks of something from Gilbert and Sullivan. I fear that that is a little more dangerous than was intended.
	My noble friend Lord Tebbit made an excellent contribution, but I may have misunderstood him when he said that, in the progress of these unions towards the glorious European mega-state that awaits us at the end of the gilded ladder, there has never been a move from QMV to unanimity. There has never been an example of giving up the veto. All the examples show a move from unanimity towards qualified majority voting.

Lord Tebbit: If I did get it the wrong way round, I was going to say that I would be sure to send my secretary up to the Hansard office in the manner of Ministers to put into the official record what I thought afterwards that I ought to have said rather than what I actually did say.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that the Committee would agree that the Hansard office will be invited to oblige.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his excellent contribution, referred to "the ratchet". It is important to understand that we are dealing with a ratchet that can move in only one direction. The treaties say that it must do so. They say that the so-called acquis communitaire can never be reversed. If your Lordships do not agree, I can name the articles concerned. It is worth reading them so that one can see exactly how one is caught. I refer to Articles 2, 3 and 6.4 of the Treaty of European Union and Protocol 30, which is supposed to be the protocol on the glorious clause on subsidiarity, which supposedly allows member states to do their own thing. It is interesting to note that it is Protocol 30 on subsidiarity in the TEC—the treaty establishing the European Community—that makes any reverse of power acquired by the European Union impossible. But, once the European Union has something, it keeps it for ever.
	On the specific matter of the common foreign and security policy, it is worth saying that there is a case for suggesting that the events of 11th September do not show that we need more CFSP. We do not need to move towards ever closer union on that issue. I know that those who support the European dream immediately pounced after those events, saying that we must have more collaboration and CFSP, and that it was once again the hour of European unity in standing and fighting together.
	I note that the Prime Minister, whom everyone believes has done a magnificent job since 11th September, and on which he should be congratulated from all sides of this Chamber, did not rush off to sit down with his friends in Brussels. He contacted the President of the United States immediately and has stood shoulder to shoulder with him ever since. The other leaders in the European Union have been rushing round the world trying to emulate him in a rather unsatisfactory manner. The Dutch Prime Minister rushed to Downing Street to a dinner to which he had not been invited because the Prime Minister had rightly put together the big hitters of the European Union and asked them to dinner. There was the spectacle of the Dutch Prime Minister muscling in on that.
	We also heard chippy remarks from the Belgian Prime Minister when he said that our Prime Minister was hogging the world stage too much, which was not helpful. Our Prime Minister was trying to help in the interests of civilisation and humanity as we know it.
	I do not agree with the theory that the events of 11th September mean that we should have more common foreign and security policy in the European Union.

Lord Lea of Crondall: Is the noble Lord suggesting that Luxembourg should have had a veto on who to invite to that famous dinner?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: No. I was merely pointing out that it is not the European Union that responds in times of crisis, but the old and tested alliance and friendship of this country and the United States of America. The behaviour of the Dutch Prime Minister shows an ambition to muscle in on this tried and tested and, if I may say so, powerful and effective alliance. It shows how pathetic the ambitions of some of those leaders of European countries are.

Lord Acton: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is making an admirable speech as usual, but I cannot understand what it has to do with the amendment.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: If the noble Lord will be good enough to read Hansard tomorrow, he will find out that I am trying to suggest that the last thing we need is more unity over common foreign and security policy. That includes the appointment of a High Representative.
	When one considers matters of Euro-creep, one always does well to consider just how bad things have already become. In that respect, I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that there are already 28 foreign policy security groups which meet in Brussels. I do not expect the noble Lord to respond today, but I should be grateful if he could write to me, placing a copy in the Library, saying which areas those 28 groups cover. To whom do they report? What action have we ever taken outside the agreement of one of those 28 groups in Brussels? I do not suggest that these groups are binding but that they have already compromised our foreign policy to a degree which many of us would find unacceptable. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide some enlightenment on that matter at least by way of correspondence.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Following this debate I have a problem; namely, that I can reply either to the amendment or to some of the speeches. I shall cut my speech on the amendment and very briefly respond to the admirable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on foreign policy. There is so much misunderstanding contained in a period of only 14 minutes that something needs to be said in public. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said—I must repeat it from the Dispatch Box—foreign policy is made by member states, not the Commission. Foreign policy is made by unanimity, not qualified majority voting. The arrangements for foreign policy were established in the Treaty of Maastricht, not the Treaty of Nice. There is no change in the Treaty of Nice. Any change would require the unanimous agreement of the member states.
	The High Representative—we come to the tenuous link between these debates and the amendments—whether chosen by qualified majority voting or unanimity, implements the policy agreed by the member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said, the role of the High Representative is modelled on NATO's Secretary-General. There is no danger in future of a high representative following a policy which is inconsistent with the unanimous views of the member states. That is as much as I want to say about foreign policy.
	However, I should like to deal with qualified majority voting because it refers not only to these amendments but to all the others which were grouped with it by agreement last week but have now been ungrouped. I shall not speculate in public on the reasons for that.

Lord Tebbit: I know that the Minister, in referring to the adoption of foreign policy by QMV through the Council—that is part of the Treaty of Maastricht, which he will recall I strongly opposed—will draw the attention of the Committee to the second paragraph of Article 11 which provides that member states shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union, or is likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations. Clearly, that means that once a policy has been adopted any member state which seeks to deviate from that policy after a change of government will be in breach of the treaty.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that I had said enough about foreign policy, but even now the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, appears to believe that decisions on foreign policy made by member states are by qualified majority voting. He just said so.
	When the United Kingdom joined the then European Economic Community there were already a number of articles in the Treaty of Rome which were subject to QMV. As the EEC, and later the European Union, has grown larger there has been a need to extend QMV to stop decision-making grinding to a halt. The biggest extension came with the Single European Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may have disagreed with the Treaty of Maastricht, but his party did not. Literally thousands of directives and regulations have been passed using articles to which QMV has been extended. That allowed progress on the single market to be accelerated—and a very good thing, too.
	My partial answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—for the extensive range of information that he requires he must refer to published documents—is that Maastricht also introduced QMV into many new areas of activity: implementing measures for common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs pillars; trans-European networks and transport; telecommunications; energy infrastructures; development policy co-operation; consumer protection; environment, and many others.
	I have a whole section of brief which attacks the Conservative Party but I do not propose to use it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Like my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I did my best to oppose the Treaty of Maastricht. Any attack that the Minister may make on the party is not something which will worry me very much. The noble Lord may have misunderstood my question when he cited a list of items which moved to QMV under Maastricht. My question concerned the 28 foreign policy groups which meet in Brussels and, as I understand it, already decide most of our foreign policy. I accept that it is not appropriate for the noble Lord to provide all this information, even if he had it at his fingertips—which I suspect he may not—during Committee stage. To establish just how bad is the situation already, my question is: what areas do these groups cover, to whom do they report and what action have we ever taken outside them? Have we ever acted against the view of the majority in those 28 groups?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since the question has nothing to do with the amendment I shall write to the noble Lord referring him to the published documents which will answer his question. I believe that that is as fair as I can offer. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is entirely consistent about Maastricht, but it was their party which put forward that treaty. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, as a member of the then government object to the Single European Act 1986 in quite the same way.
	I turn away from the Conservative Party, with some pleasure, to talk about this Government's views. The Government take a pragmatic view of QMV which is based on calculating Britain's best interests. Qualified majority voting works for Britain and has built the single market on which over 3 million UK jobs and thousands of businesses depend. It simply is not true that Britain always loses out and others almost always win. In 1999 the UK was not outvoted on a single issue, but Germany was twice, France three times and Italy eight times.
	We are clear that more qualified majority voting in the right areas can work strongly in Britain's interest in future. That was how we approached the negotiations on the Treaty of Nice. Where we felt strongly that an issue was of such fundamental importance that the decision must remain with the UK—with this Government and Parliament—we simply said that we would not agree. We made that clear to this House and our European Union partners even before we started the negotiations. We set out in advance in a White Paper in February 2000 the areas where we would not agree to QMV. We said that we would not accept QMV for tax, social security, defence, border controls, treaty change or the Union's own resources—its budget—nor did we. The UK veto remains on all these issues.
	Nice extends QMV in 31 articles of the treaty, and there are good reasons for all those changes. How significant are they compared with those articles which were agreed by the Conservative Party—I am sorry, previous governments? How many times is the new article on the appointment of the CFSP special representative to be used compared with the number of times the articles which moved to QMV under the Single European Act have already been used? Consider the significance of moving consumer protection to QMV as the opposition did at Maastricht compared with moving the rules for the procedures of the Court of Auditors as we did at Nice.
	This is not about numbers but about British interests. To oppose QMV in principle is short-sighted. Every one of the 31 moves to QMV that we agreed at Nice will be in Britain's interests. It is in Britain's interests to have QMV for industrial policy to increase competition. Our companies do very well out of the single market. It is in Britain's interest to have QMV for international agreements on trade and services. Our companies benefit from the liberalisation that this is likely to deliver.
	It is also in the UK's interests to have QMV for the rules and procedures of the European Court of Justice. That will deliver more efficient procedures and speedier judgments to ensure that the EU's rules are respected. In this group of amendments, it is in the UK's interests that decisions on who should be appointed to official positions should be made efficiently. They should not be held up on the principle of Buggins' turn, or on the basis of nationality or cross-border rivalry. We need the best people appointed quickly and efficiently so that they can get on with their duties. That is what QMV will do for us in this area.
	We have nothing to apologise for in the changes made in the Treaty of Nice. I oppose the amendment.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister extols the virtues of QMV and says how helpful it has been to the British economy. Does he agree that there have also been occasions when we knew that we would be outvoted on a matter and therefore did not even put it to the vote? I refer, for instance, to the directive on young people at work with which I was associated. Let us also take the example of the British art market—a valuable asset to the country—which has been destroyed by QMV. I trust that the Minister will agree that QMV is not all one-way traffic.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not all one-way traffic. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, last week we had a specific example of one-way traffic in the other direction which I meant to draw to the Committee's attention. The noble Lord challenged whether there were any cases of QMV moving to unanimity. Hansard will show that we debated last week the changes to Article 175(2) on the environment which restored to unanimity decisions on measures of a general nature on land use.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that this debate is about appointing the secretary-general of the secretariat, but not the President of the Commission—an even more important issue which we shall debate in another amendment. I am sorry that we have missed the attack on the Conservative Party which sits steaming in the Minister's brief. That might have stimulated a wide debate. However, I am on his side. We want to keep the debate to the issues in the amendment as much as possible.
	I do not apologise for considering the implications underlying the amendment in order to argue the force of the case. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reproved me for that. I believe that that reinforces and defines some of the problems under both governments with European Union legislation. When one seeks to halt a trend or a broad drift, every grandmother's footstep looks somewhat small, Therefore any attempt to halt that step opens itself to the charge of pettiness. Yet when those steps are added up, when each little salami slice is put together again, one has moved significantly in a certain direction.
	The noble Lord may say that this step is not very great. However, since Maastricht and the Amsterdam Treaty there has been a constant underlying murmur that the inter-governmental pillars shall one day somehow be brought into the full Community system. One needs to be on guard against that trend. Many of us believe that it will be very unhealthy.
	With his usual authority the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that it does not matter how the person is appointed because he or she will be a servant of the Council of Ministers. That is undeniable; but it surely does matter, even if it appears to be a marginal issue, as to whether it is one person or another. That might well be shaped by a QMV or unanimity with general agreement and consensus.
	I agree with the view that power is drifting away from the Commission to the Council. I may not carry with me all my noble friends on this point. The trend in decentralising the tendencies and longings of the Commission to establish a major role in foreign and military policies has been encouraging. Under the present arrangements that has been prevented. The present arrangements have begun to develop a fascinating pattern of redistribution of power in the European Union which weakens the motor role of the Commission over previous decades. That is a healthy development which we need to reinforce. There are quite solid moves to ensure that foreign policy is kept as far as possible in a sensible, flexible pattern of arrangements and not too centralised or "communitised". That is good.
	I close this lively short debate by appealing not to higher glories and higher principles but merely by asking, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Those who want to see a flexible, democratic Europe may be just about holding their own. The Prime Minister has done magnificently in holding his corner against too much centralisation and singularisation of foreign policy in Europe. It is just about working. By bringing in QMV—it is a small touch—we are allowing matters to drift a little in the opposite direction. It is time that here as elsewhere in many areas the drift was stopped. It is an important principle. It is not a marginal issue. I should like to have the opinion of the Committee tested on this matter.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 176.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Heathrow Terminal 5

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement concerning the proposal to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport and to outline our intention to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system.
	"I am today publishing the inspector's report into Heathrow Terminal 5 as well as my decision letter. Copies of both have been placed in the Library of the House. My decision and the reasons for it have been set out in the decision letter itself.
	"The inquiry into Terminal 5 was the longest in British planning history. It opened in May 1995 and closed in March 1999. The inspector, Mr Roy Vandermeer QC, reported to my department on 20th December last year. I should like to thank the inspector for his report. I am grateful to him for the great diligence which he has shown.
	"The delay in reaching a decision since the report was received in December arises because, since the inspector reported, the applicants—BAA, who are the owners and operators of Heathrow Airport—warned in May that they wished to revise the Twin Rivers Scheme which was a part of the original application. It was August before they put forward any details. Those then required consultation, which was completed in mid October.
	"After considering the inspector's report and taking into account all the relevant considerations, I have today given my approval to the development of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Such a development is in the national interest. It will enable Heathrow to remain a world-class airport. It will bring benefits to the British economy, both locally and nationally. At the same time as giving my approval to the development, I have also imposed conditions in order to protect the interests of those living in the vicinity of Heathrow.
	"The inspector stresses in his report that the issue is essentially one of striking a balance. He identifies the benefits of Terminal 5. They are considerable. He sees Heathrow as essential for keeping the UK air transport industry strong and competitive.
	"The inspector sees wider benefits beyond the aviation industry. He points to benefits for London and for the UK as a whole. He says that Heathrow has done a great deal to attract investment to the United Kingdom and that London's success as a world city and financial centre could be threatened unless Heathrow stays competitive. He says that by ensuring Heathrow's continued success, Terminal 5 would make a major contribution to the national economy. And he says that it would be good for passengers, providing a terminal equal to the best in the world and relieving the pressure on the other four terminals. I also agree with the inspector that the real beneficiaries, if Terminal 5 is not provided, would be Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, Schipol in Amsterdam and Frankfurt Airport.
	"The inspector rightly draws attention to the disadvantages. They, too, are important. There is noise: the inspector looks at that issue at length. And he looks at matters such as extra road traffic, air quality, intrusion into the Green Belt and the effects of construction.
	"The inspector weighs all the benefits and costs very carefully. He says—and I use his words—that he has come to the clear conclusion that the benefits of Terminal 5 would substantially outweigh the environmental impact as long as its effects are properly controlled.
	"I agree with him that Terminal 5 should go ahead, but subject to conditions. I would like to outline the key conditions to the House. First, a limit has been set on the number of flights each year at 480,000. This limit has been imposed on a precautionary basis and because of the inspector's concerns about noise. This was recommended by the inspector. Last year Heathrow handled some 460,000 flights and just under 65 million passengers. Even with a limit of 480,000 flights, the inspector adopted a figure of 90 million passengers per annum as the potential capacity of Heathrow if Terminal 5 were built.
	"Secondly, the noise effects of Terminal 5 will also be limited by a condition restricting the area enclosed by the 57-decibel noise contour to 145 square kilometres as from 2016. Again, I follow the inspector's recommendation.
	"The inspector recommends stricter controls on night flights. I recognise that there is considerable concern about night noise. I am not legally entitled to change the night noise regime without consultation. I will consult on an extension of the night quota period when I next put forward proposals for the night noise regime for the BAA London airports. I have decided that this consultation will take place by 2003 at the latest.
	"The House should also be aware that we have already announced a change to the system of so-called 'westerly preference' at Heathrow to reduce the number of night flights over built-up west London. This is in line with one of the inspector's recommendations. We have also announced a major study to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise. This will permit a fresh look at the present 'Leq' noise index on which the inspector commented.
	"I have also agreed with the inspector on the need to promote the use of public transport. So I have imposed conditions, as he recommended, requiring the extension to Terminal 5 of both the Heathrow Express and the Piccadilly Line before the new terminal is opened.
	"And I have agreed with the inspector in cutting the provision of car parking spaces for the airport as a whole below that in the original proposals. I am imposing a condition limiting total spaces to 42,000 rather than the 46,000 proposed by BAA. Of these only 17,500 rather than the 21,700 originally proposed, will be available for employees.
	"The terminal proposals also included widening of the M4 between junctions 3 and 4b. But I agree with the inspector that widening would not be appropriate. I have therefore refused approval for it.
	"As to timing, I have imposed conditions requiring that work to implement any of the planning approvals should not start until a separate approval has been given to the essential scheme for diversion of the twin rivers that flow across the Terminal 5 site. That will ensure that there will be proper opportunity for full examination of that scheme.
	"I should touch on three further points. First, the tragic events of 11th September and the effects of those terrorist attacks on air travel. In reaching my decision, I have noted that the inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly, Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis.
	"Secondly, honourable Members will know of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 2nd October in the case of Hatton and Others v. the UK. This concerned night noise at Heathrow. The court held by a majority that there had been an infringement of the convention. I am considering that judgment, which does not become final until at least three months after it was delivered. Quite apart from my decision on Terminal 5, I will of course wish to ensure that the night noise regime at Heathrow complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	"Thirdly, I am well aware of the length of time that was taken by the process of the public inquiry into Terminal 5. In saying that, I mean no criticism of the inspector; but there must be an issue as to whether such lengthy inquiries are appropriate. Accordingly, I announced on 20th July that we were considering a package of measures to streamline the handling of major infrastructure projects in the planning system. This included a commitment to publish up-to-date statements of government policy before major infrastructure projects are considered in the planning system, to help reduce inquiry time spent on debating the policy, the introduction of new arrangements to give Parliament the opportunity to approve projects in principle, and improved public inquiry procedures. We shall be publishing further details for consultation in the next two months.
	"Taken together with the other steps we will be proposing to improve the operation of the planning and compulsory purchase systems, these measures will both safeguard the rights of people to have their say and reduce the time that is taken in future to reach decisions on major infrastructure projects.
	"My decision and the reasons for it are set out in full in the decision letter which I have issued today. Nothing I say here today should in any way be seen as a substitute for what is in that lengthy decision letter.
	"Giving the go-ahead for a fifth terminal at Heathrow is essential if we are to maintain Heathrow as one of the world's leading airports and bring benefits to the British economy both locally and nationally.
	"I have no doubt that the national interest requires that this project should proceed as long as we put in place measures to safeguard local people and their communities. This I believe my decision achieves and I commend it to the House".

Viscount Astor: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. Perhaps I should first congratulate the inspector, who has produced an extremely good report. It is a mammoth feat considering that the public inquiry took four years. The Government's will be welcomed by the airlines.
	The Secretary of State has had to balance difficult considerations. On the one hand, there is a need to maintain Heathrow as a major European hub to compete with Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris and to benefit the aviation industry in this country. On the other hand, there is the contrary need of safeguarding the interests of those living near Heathrow.
	The Minister has outlined some of the steps that the Government believe should be taken before Terminal 5 is opened. I should like to comment on some of those steps and to ask a number of questions.
	The noble and learned Lord said that there would be a limit of 480,000 flights and that that would be a planning condition. We welcome that. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no increase in the number of night flights? We believe that there should be a presumption against night flights over residential areas unless it can be proved that there is a real need for them. We are as concerned as the Government about noise. The report states that there will not be a final decision until 2003. Why will it take so long? Will the effect on sleep disturbance be considered?
	The Minister said that the Government will insist that rail and tube links are improved. We welcome that. Can he explain why there will be a limit on the increased usage of the Heathrow Express? I do not understand why there should be such a restriction.
	What will be done to improve the rail links from the west? At the moment, if you get on a train to Heathrow from the West of England you have to stop at Reading and get on a bus. We believe that, at the very least, there should be a western rail link, if not, indeed, a southern rail link as well.
	When coming to their decision in regard to Terminal 5, did the Government consider the capacity of other London regional airports such as Stansted, Luton and Gatwick? Indeed, did they look at whether there was a need for a new runway in the South East? The noble and learned Lord explained the need for increased capacity but, at the end of the day, if capacity is to rise at that level, will another runway be needed to cope with it? Can the Minister confirm that a new runway is not in the Government's plans at the moment? Can he confirm that there will be no need for an additional runway at Heathrow when Terminal 5 goes ahead?
	In coming to their decision, did the Government consider the House of Commons Select Committee report published in 1995-96, which stated that consideration should be given to constructing a new airport in the Thames Estuary?
	This has been a mammoth inquiry which has cost more than £83 million. It has taken far too long—more than eight years—and it will be at least another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 can be opened. The Minister announced plans to change and streamline the planning process for major infrastructure projects. We are concerned that the Government's plans should not undermine local involvement when considering such projects.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we, too, welcome the Statement made in another place and repeated by the noble and learned Lord. I wish to concentrate, particularly, on the issue of access to the airport.
	We learn from the papers that the motorway will not be expanded. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I, too, am concerned about surface access by rail from the South West, the West and the North. It is apposite that we are considering the report at the same time as the CAA has published its first report into the funding of airline landing charges for the next five years. In terms of improved access to the airport, nothing in that report gives any comfort. It will happen if someone else pays. We believe that it should be either a condition of planning consent or that we should change the rules—which are to go before the Competition Commission—so that money is set aside for decent surface access, including the extension of the Piccadilly line and the Heathrow Express.
	It says in the Statement that those lines are to be extended, but it does not say how that is to be paid for. They have to be paid for, and we believe that they should be paid for by airport users. We should not forget that "airport users" include not only passengers but "weepers and greeters" and people who work at the airport and travel there every day. The present means of access are either very inefficient or very expensive. We want these issues addressed because, inadequate as it is, the Airport Express is not a suitable way for workers to get to the airport.
	We welcome the fact that the Minister will look at the planning system. This inquiry is a monument to inefficiency and has cost a vast sum of money. It is time that we moved towards an inquisitorial system and away from the adversarial system which was used here. The inspector should ask questions and people should not read out long statements. Several improvements can be made. But, whatever the outcome, inquiries should be held efficiently.
	We know that there will be more noise. Unfortunately, that will be one of the effects of this decision and it is one of the crosses that people who live near the airport will have to bear. It is an area of bad air quality, which will get worse. There will be more car parking spaces than there are now. We believe that a real attempt should be made to deal with the issue of decent surface access above all others.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their welcome for the decision. I shall now deal with the points that they have raised
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the 480,000 flights limit and asked for an assurance that there will be no increase in night flights. There can be no change in the night flight regime without consultation. My right honourable friend in another place said that he would consult about the night flight regime in the light of the concerns expressed. That consultation will be thorough and detailed and concluded by 2003. It is right that the process should be detailed, thorough and take some time.
	The reason for the limitation on the number of Heathrow Express train journeys from Paddington is to deal with traffic around the Paddington area. The Secretary of State deals with that issue in paragraph 55 of the decision letter, where he sets out his reasons.
	As to capacity at other airports, the report of the inspector deals in great detail with the issue of capacity at other airports in the South-East of England. He refers to capacity at airports in the country as a whole, but he obviously deals in detail with capacity in the South-East.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the fact that it will take another six years, if all goes well, before Terminal 5 is completed. He drew attention to the fact that the procedure has taken too long. With respect, we agree that the planning stage of major infrastructure projects needs to be dealt with in a way that will lead to a quicker result than occurred on this occasion.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that access to the airport should be paid for by the users of the airport. The British Airports Authority is committed to encouraging the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow. The Secretary of State expects the BAA to fulfil that commitment, including additional rail services—to which paragraph 54 of the decision letter specifically refers.

Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, six years ago, I addressed the Select Committee on Transport in another place at length about the marinair airport, which my noble friend Lord Astor mentioned. I declare an interest, as chairman and chief executive of the Thames Estuary Airport Company. Another Peer, who is seated behind me, is on the board—and another Peer present is the company's political adviser. We hope to make an announcement in the next few weeks. Two of the people with whom we were working closely were killed on 11th September, which did not add to our speed or joy.
	We heard today about concern, which is reasonable, over night flights and flights over towns. A Thames Estuary airport, some 30 kilometres downstream from Tilbury, would kill any night effects on London. It would also avoid daytime traffic over London and the risk from crashes.
	Judging by the post that we have been receiving, interest in the airport is enormous—not only from local councils. People throughout the South East are worried. If we can make our announcement, I hope that the Government will listen with great interest. That would be to the Government's advantage financially and in every other way. Such a development would be in the Government's favour and the country and employment would gain. Above all, new runways at existing airports would be totally unnecessary.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's remarks in respect of a matter on which there has not yet been any announcement. Today, we are dealing with a decision in relation to Terminal 5 and we should focus on that issue.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on reaching a decision which removes a great deal of uncertainty after such a long public inquiry. Many people who live, work or have businesses locally will be pleased.
	My noble and learned friend commented that BAA is committed to encouraging public transport. Is that really sufficient? Most other airport developments in Europe not only have rail services to the airport but local and national rail services pass through the airport. Paddington might get congested but that is nothing like what Heathrow will become if more people are not encouraged to use trains. I echo the comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the need for west-facing rail services. Are BAA committed to such services and to opening them before the terminal itself is opened?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The relevant part of the decision letter states:
	"The Inspector recommends at paragraph 32.4.4 and paragraph 35.1.1.1.f of his report that conditions should be imposed requiring BAA to use their best endeavours to provide a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras, and to secure the opening of the Gateway North station, before Terminal 5 is opened. The Secretary of State has concluded that such a condition could not easily be enforced and agrees with the Inspector that there are problems in providing such a service as identified by the Inspector . . . Therefore, and bearing in mind the guidance in Circular 11/95 on the use of conditions, the Secretary of State has concluded that he should attach these conditions. However, the Secretary of State expects BAA to comply with their commitment to encourage the introduction and use of additional public transport services at Heathrow and to consider securing a four trains an hour service linking Terminal 5 to St. Pancras and the opening of the Gateway North Station, before Terminal 5 is open".
	That is a partial answer to my noble friend's question.

Lord Geddes: My Lords, the Statement referred to 480,000 flights a year. Can the Minister give the definition of "flights"? Does that phrase include landings as well as take-offs or is a "flight" a landing or a take-off? Regardless of the answer, will the noble and learned Lord confirm—I am no way being facetious—that an airplane is an airplane is an airplane? Is a business jet exactly pari passu with a Boeing 747?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the figure of 480,000 relates to air traffic movements—take-offs or landings. An airplane is an airplane is an airplane, so all air traffic movements will involve a range of sizes.

Lord Desai: My Lords, at a time when the airline industry is facing massive shutdowns and losses and is begging for structural funds to survive, is it not paradoxical that a new airport is being predicated on rosy traffic forecasts? If, following 11th September, traffic patterns and travel habits change drastically, will there be a chance to reconsider in the next two years or so? We may find that there may soon be excess airport capacity, rather than a need for a fifth London air terminal.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement dealt in part with my noble friend's point:
	"In reaching my decision, I have noted that the Inspector has based his conclusions on forecasts as far ahead as 2016; and clearly Terminal 5 is expected to be in operation much longer than that. Planning decisions such as this require a lengthy time horizon, and I believe that my decision is well justified on that basis".
	The decision must be based on a long-term look into the future.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Statement referred to reviewing the lengthy planning processes involved in major infrastructure projects. Will that review be included in the report?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that aspect will not be included in the report, which will simply be about Terminal 5. In July, my right honourable friend gave indications in another place of the areas where we shall try to speed up and streamline major national infrastructure projects. Within the next two months, we shall issue a separate consultation document that will set out our proposals for improving and streamlining major infrastructure project processes.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I note the restrictions on car parking and the welcome improvements in public transport announced as part of the decision. The south-west link proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—from the Feltham-Staines line to Terminal 5 and other terminals—is long overdue if the number of people travelling to the airport by car is to be reduced. Is there any intention to establish a target maximum number of passengers and staff travelling by car to the airport in future? Fifty per cent is the sort of target that other airports seek to adopt. That would send a signal that the Government are serious about encouraging people using Terminal 5 to travel by public transport rather than driving there in their own cars.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are keen to encourage public transport. As to a specific target, I shall write to my noble friend.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the reduction in the amount of car parking space available. Is it realistic to expect that it will be possible, by any means, to reduce the amount of car parking space required? Do the figures quoted by the noble and learned Lord include car parks outside the perimeter of the airport itself?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to whether it is realistic, the noble Lord will recall that one of the conditions imposed in relation to Terminal 5 going ahead is an improvement in the frequency of various public transport services. That will assist in some respects. So far as concerns car parking, I believe that the figures given are for parking within the vicinity of the airport, including Terminal 5.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is my observation with regard to people who work at Heathrow that the airport authority is already attempting to discourage them from coming in by car. I suspect that the main cause is that the land is rather too valuable to allow it to have cars parked on it all day long. I am talking about people who work there, not people who travel.
	Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on his public transport announcement. Will he accept that when the airport authority brought forward this project, it tried to convince people that underneath the new Terminal there would be an "all singing, all dancing, all modal" transfer station, as it were, where rail—I do not mean rail into London; I mean rail to the North West and the South West—bus, taxi and motor car could all come and go in relation to the aeroplanes arriving and the passengers arriving. Is that being done?
	My second question relates to the enormous landside shopping facilities that were planned. Are those landside facilities—said to be as large as the entire shopping area of Staines, the nearest sizeable town to the airport—going ahead? If so, they will of their very nature increase the number of people who want to reach the airport by car.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the detailed history of what was on offer by the BAA—and I am not inviting the noble Baroness to remind me of the details. The inspector addressed the issue of what public transport improvements are required to deal with Terminal 5. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has considered those carefully and has given his conclusions. Those were not on whether the facilities would be "all singing and all dancing"; they were on the precise public transport improvements that are required in order to facilitate Terminal 5. He addresses all those considerations in the detail of his decision letter. The right place to look for the answer is the decision letter. So far as concerns retail decisions, I fully understand the noble Baroness's point. Perhaps I may write to her on the matter.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I accept that this is an important decision to have made. But it seems extraordinary that it has taken a year since the inquiry finished to come to this point of a decision being made today. In the future, could these important inquiries have a slightly shorter time-scale? Six years is a long time in reality.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, an application for permission to go ahead with Terminal 5 was made by the British Airports Authority in 1993—so the decision has taken eight years. The time-scale is much too long. That is why the Government, in parallel with the decision announced today, are proceeding with a consultation process on how to shorten the period in which decisions of this kind are taken. That is the consultation paper to which I referred in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there will be considerable disappointment at today's announcement among people living around Heathrow and around the London approaches and the western approaches? There will be a considerable increase in the number of passengers. An increase of 38 per cent, or 25 million, means that there will be an extra 80,000 movements of people each day. Furthermore, I am not sure that the figures tie up with an increase of only 20,000 in the number of flights. The increase in passenger numbers is given as 38 per cent, and in flights 4.5 per cent. People will need to examine those figures.
	Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that, unless there is a radical alteration in transport facilities to Heathrow, the congestion on the M4 and in west London will be more than people can bear—and it is unbearable now? The decision having been made, I urge the noble and learned Lord to put as much pressure as he can on the Heathrow authorities to bring forward a transport plan which will not bring about those increases in traffic, fumes, noise and general additional environmental pollution. Also, will he give those people the assurance that this is not the run-in for a third runway at Heathrow?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the answer to the first question is yes. I am aware that there will be significant numbers of people for whom the decision will cause considerable dismay. Those views were expressed during the course of the inquiry. The inspector and my right honourable friend in another place have considered them extremely carefully. As has been made clear, the decision seeks to provide a balance between the benefits of a fifth Terminal and the consequences for those in the vicinity who will be affected by it.
	I shall not attempt to address the specific figures raised by my noble friend in his question. However, I assure him that those issues were considered by the inspector.
	So far as concerns congestion on the M4, surface transport to and from Heathrow after Terminal 5 is built was considered in considerable depth by the inspector and again by my right honourable friend in considering the inspector's report. The issue has been fully taken into account, both in the inspector's conclusions and by my right honourable friend in his detailed decision letter.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, following on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, does the Minister realise that hardly a thing that he has said today gives any comfort at all to the general travelling public? It is hell getting to Heathrow with suitcases and perhaps with children; and doing it by public transport is virtually impossible, particularly for more elderly folk. Nothing that the Minister has said indicates that it will become easier. Using public transport is not the answer, given the difficulty of trans-shipping luggage from trains to platforms, to airport check-ins and so on. What the Minister wants to think about is making life easier for the passengers, not easier for the planners.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the purpose of the decision in building a fifth terminal at London Heathrow is to facilitate in particular the comfort and convenience of passengers at Heathrow. There are specific public transport aspects to the decision, in particular connecting London to Heathrow, which the decision specifically deals with. It is to be hoped that the travelling public will find greater facilities as a result of this decision.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, now that the Government have come forward with a decision on this important issue, no one should under-estimate the complexities or the controversial nature of the decision. I, for one, fully understand why it has taken the Government some time to digest the very full report from the inspector. What the decision does provide is clarity for all concerned, particularly those in the airport and airline industry—clarity against which they can make their investment decisions.
	Perhaps I may briefly ask the Minister about a point of detail. Having praised the length of time and the diligence with which the report was studied before a decision was reached, perhaps I may ask about the announcement itself. Last night, the media were full of the fact that this decision was about to be made and gave some impression of what it would contain. This morning's press carried fairly full details—which miraculously coincided with the Minister's announcement this afternoon. Given that BAA is a publicly quoted company, and given that some 3 million shares in it have been traded this morning on the Stock Exchange, first, did the department, or Ministers, authorise the disclosure of any information whatever about the decision in advance of the Secretary of State's announcement? Secondly, what does the Minister believe the effect would have been on the stock market of this period of limbo?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his characteristic understanding of how long it took before the decision was made, although, as I have made clear, such decisions need to be made more quickly in future. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear that Parliament would be given the announcement first. That is what has happened today. I am not aware of any earlier disclosure. It is not surprising that there will be great speculation about the result when such a decision is about to be announced. That is inevitable. I am not sure what the noble Viscount means by the period of limbo. If he means the past six years when the decision was in gestation, that is the nature of such projects.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 22, revising Article 214 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,"

Lord Howell of Guildford: This amendment may superficially appear the same as Amendment No. 22, but it raises very different issues, although they were touched on in the previous debate. The central concern is the application of qualified majority voting to the appointment of the President of the European Commission, which is a highly significant role. The process—which has been changed, for reasons that are not totally apparent to us—is germane to the appointment.
	As I understand the technicalities, the Commission President is now to be nominated by the member state governments acting by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity. The Council would also adopt the list of nominees for members of the Commission by QMV and by common accord with the nominee for president. The European Parliament would still approve the Commission as a body, but the final appointment by the Council would be by QMV instead of unanimity.
	Some of your Lordships may be keen to point out that past procedures for finding the best person to be President of the Commission have not been entirely happy. That point has already been made. One might say that the results have been mixed—not all bad and not all good. The views of member states on the best man or woman for the job reflect their concerns and interests on the future shape of Europe.
	The proposition that the system is bad and ought to be changed will not stand up by itself. The system has produced some great figures who have performed their role superbly. My earliest memory is of the widespread approval in the EEC, as we then called it, for the work of Walter Hallstein, whom Jean Monnet greatly admired. Walter Hallstein fulfilled the role that Jean Monnet saw for the Commission in its early days: he should be a low-profile individual with not too large a dose of political ambition and not too high a profile on the political platforms of Europe, but dedicated to sewing together the European unity that Jean Monnet sought and of which he was the magnificent and visionary architect. Other great people followed: Jean Rey, Franco Maria Malfatti, Sicco Mansholt, Francois-Xavier Ortoli, who was most impressive, then the superb Roy Jenkins, now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who acted as president from 1977 and is universally regarded as having done an excellent job, then Gaston Thorn, Jacques Delors, Jacques Santer and now Romano Prodi.
	Latterly, there has been increased unhappiness. That may be because larger accumulations of power appear to be in the hands of the president. Perhaps that is an illusion, but it may still be why people have become more jealous and concerned about how this important role should be fulfilled. I would not like to say. The unease is there and after Mr Delors left there was a great deal of in-fighting.
	It could be argued that qualified majority voting would cut out all the in-fighting, but I doubt whether it would. Those of us who watch these things closely—and I know that there are people in your Lordships' House who have been much closer to the issue than I have—could not sustain the argument that bringing in qualified majority voting will clean up and swiftly refashion the entire procedure. There will always be jostling for the job. The answer of the true Europe-builder is not so much to reform how the job is sought, but to be a great deal clearer in defining the purposes and limitations of the role of President of the Commission.
	I worry more for the future because people talk now about electing the President of the Commission, not just through QMV, but maybe, under a new constitution, by a Europe-wide poll. In other words, the aspiration exists to turn the job into a presidency more along the American political lines than anything that was intended by Jean Monnet. That is a great worry and should on its own cause us to be very cautious about tinkering in any way with the methods by which the succession of presidents have found their place in the job.
	Then there is a worry that is particularly associated with the Nice Treaty and the Bill. It covers areas that we shall come to in later debates: how QMV will work under the new weighting systems. The new arrangements are significant and involve a pretty hefty advantage for the big states and some difficulties for the smaller states, should they wish to hold out for their own candidate against whoever was wanted in Berlin or Paris—or maybe in London.
	My view—I do not necessarily claim that it is universally accepted by my party—is that our nation is at its best and pursues its true longer-term interests best when it is looking after the smaller countries of Europe. There is an inclination for us to be gung-ho and claim that we have fixed Britain's interests and made sure that we cannot be outvoted by the smaller countries, but I do not think that that is a healthy way for European democracy to develop. There should be strong circumscribed limits on the powers of the central institutions so that the arrangement of rules at the centre can be more democratic and less of a threat to the interests of individual states.
	I do not want to compare the European Union with the United States, but I have always been fascinated that from the start the United States has managed a system that has full population-weighted representation in the lower House, but an upper House with two senators from every state regardless of size. Some of those states are so vastly different in size as to make any differences of size in Europe look quite modest—unless we consider Luxembourg. The difference between Rhode Island and California is colossal. So it is possible to have a fair and balanced democracy without huge weightings here and there. If such weightings are to be applied, I should tremble at what may be in prospect if I were a citizen of a smaller state.
	That is a worry, but our broader worry is that we see no reason why QMV is necessary in the matter, despite the ups and downs and bumps of previous appointments. We are not convinced by the usual efficiency argument. Every time that I hear high officials talk about more efficiency and momentum in Europe, I check myself, because in a democracy we need checks and balances, and they often lead to inefficiency and loss of momentum. Perhaps the other side of the coin from momentum is more democracy, argument and tiresome disagreement. Perhaps those who are so eager to have momentum, efficiency, rapid appointments and rapid moves forward in Europe-building should occasionally pause, after the great success of the past half-century in building Europe to realise that once democracy is introduced, everything will—and ought to—slow down. That is why I move Amendment No. 23, with which Amendments Nos. 28 and 31 are grouped. I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am sure that we do not need to rehearse the arguments on qualified majority voting that we had when discussing the previous amendment, but it may be worth putting on the record how the particular example of Euro-creep to which the amendment relates occurs.
	When the Treaty of Amsterdam was introduced, the President of the Commission was, in effect, given a veto over the other members of the Commission appointed under him. Until then, the whole Commission had to be approved by the member states. Under Amsterdam, the relevant provision is at Article 214—thoughtfully renumbered by the Brussels bureaucrats to muddle any of us who may have known it as Article 158 under the Treaty of Maastricht and earlier versions of the treaty. Article 214(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam states:
	"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament".
	The new provision there was getting the Parliament's agreement, but the President of the Commission was still appointed "by common accord".
	We then have one of the real beauties of European drafting—one must say that it is clever. The Amsterdam Treaty continues:
	"The governments of the Member States shall, by common accord with the nominee for President, nominate the other persons whom they intend to appoint as Members of the Commission".
	So that is how they did it: they slipped in three little words—"by common accord"—that in effect gave the President of the Commission a veto, because no one could be appointed to the Commission without common accord with the president-elect.
	We now see the process stalking on an extra step in the Treaty of Nice—as usual, it never goes backwards, always forwards—under which the president himself is to be appointed by qualified majority voting. I support my noble friend's amendment. I do not want to sound monotonous, but the treaty provision is yet another example of the ratchet moving eternally in the same direction.

Lord Tebbit: During the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford presented the argument, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it". What he perhaps neglected to recognise was that, so far as the European federalists are concerned, the treaty is "broke" until it becomes a treaty for a European state. That is what they are trying to fix each time that they fix new amendments to the treaty.
	However, as we are a bunch of reasonable people in this Chamber, and taking my noble friend's point that, "If it ain't broke; don't fix it", will the Minister tell us which appointment as President of the Commission he believes was so unsatisfactory as to justify a new system? Which one was it? Is it the present president or one of the previous ones? I ask him to name names, because unless he does, we should all conclude that the present system is working perfectly well, in the Minister's opinion.

Lord Tomlinson: I invite my noble friend, before he replies to that question, to reflect on the fact that many members of the population of this country, many Members of the Committee, and certainly many members of the European Community think that President Delors was an excellent president. In him, we managed to get as President of the European Union a good federalist who pursued a good federal line. He was there by virtue of a British Prime Minister exercising a veto. I am in many ways grateful for the exercise of that veto. We got a splendid President of the Commission as a result. The only problem was that he was frequently abused once we had got him, because he managed to do what he had said that he would do.
	On the other hand, a British Prime Minister used his veto later, when the excellent candidature of Mr Jean-Luc Dehaene, the President of Belgium, who was a rather robust individual—certainly one who would have controlled his Commission—was blackballed. As a result of that use of unanimity and of the veto that arises from it, we had President Santer. By common consent, President Santer was a nice man—in many ways, an amiable man—and I had much regard for him, but not even his best friends would call him a successful President of the Commission.
	I ask Conservative Members of the Committee to reflect on the two stories of the use of the necessity for unanimity, and to determine of which of those two events they are most proud. I am certainly more proud of the former than the latter. Especially as we now have a treaty that looks beyond the Community of 15 to a Community of 25, 26, or 27 member states, that process of horse-trading, which has not automatically served us well in the past, is now past its sell-by date. It is now appropriate that we move to qualified majority voting.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the Minister replies, will the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, confirm that he said what I think that he said? I understood him to say that he thought Mr Dehaene from Belgium would have made a good President of the Commission. Did I hear him correctly?

Lord Tomlinson: I had already sat down, but I think that the words that I used—Hansard will confirm this tomorrow—were that he was certainly a robust individual who would have led his Commission.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am no more tempted into history by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, than I am by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am lost in admiration for the historical overview of the presidency since the time of Walter Hallstein given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I shall not follow him in that direction either.
	However, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, it is worth saying what Article 214(2) provides, as amended by the Treaty Of Nice:
	"The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
	The Council, acting by a qualified majority and"—
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is paying attention because the words—
	"by common accord with the nominee for President"
	are not new. They are as they were in the previous treaty.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I hope that I shall not irritate the Minister but that is actually what I said. The three little words "by common accord" were introduced at Amsterdam. I was merely giving an example of "Euro-creep".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the noble Lord; I misheard him. The article continues,
	"shall adopt the list of the other persons whom it intends to appoint as Members of the Commission, drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State.
	"The President and the other Members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament".
	All that is as it was in Amsterdam. It then states:
	"After approval by the European Parliament, the President and the other Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority".
	That is another of the new bits.
	I do not have much more to say about qualified majority voting in these appointments. I believe that I have said it all. I think it is clear that we take the view that in these circumstances we support qualified majority voting for appointments because it will mean greater efficiency. As regards what is meant by efficiency, I think that it means less inefficiency. It means getting quicker decisions on the right person regardless of nationality.
	We do not think that it would be right for one country to be able to block appointments, as has been possible in the past, or, worse, to hold policy decisions to ransom by insisting on its own candidate. I cannot promise the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that such a step will cut out all infighting; that is idealism. However, we want the best person for the job chosen on merit and experience not on nationality and we believe that this is the way to get it.

Lord Tebbit: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that I may press him on the following point. Does he think that this change will get us a better quality of president in future than we have had in the past?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have a better chance of getting a better quality of president. I do not promise that every single nominee will be better than every single nominee in the past, which is how the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, could be interpreted.

Lord Howell of Guildford: The Government have agreed to this change in signing the Nice Treaty. However, the argument always cuts both ways. It may turn out that the measure will not make much difference at all, and judging by what we have just heard, that is one possibility. Life will go on with all its complexities and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose the measure as it is not important. Alternatively, the measure may be considered an immensely significant part of the new European system and, therefore, one may ask why we oppose it as it is so important.
	I refer to those of us who believe that we see a vision of Europe ahead which is modern, not centralised, in which there is not too much power at the centre; in which the laws, rules and procedures of the network prevail over the laws, rules and procedures of the hierarchy; and in which European unity is not constructed as a kind of ersatz scaled-up nation state with all its symbols and so on, but is something much more gentle, tolerant and flexible. Therefore, every time we are faced with the proposition that there should be more power at the centre we are concerned.
	The Commission—we debated this matter on earlier amendments—may or may not be losing power to the secretariat. The European institutions are, of course, enhanced by every QMV move. We shall discuss later the substantial list—these matters have been somewhat belittled in earlier debates—which comprises considerable and important areas where QMV is to apply under the Nice Treaty. However, as regards the matter that we are discussing, this is one more area where we are not persuaded. The case for taking this step seems to me to be minuscule, but the principles involved in taking it, however small it may appear, are gigantic.
	I was interested to hear the fair assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, of past presidents. I thought that he was fair even with regard to President Santer. I, too, shall be fair in that regard. It seems to me that President Santer was defeated by the system. He was an extremely decent man who intended to do good but he was dealing with a Commission system which has defeated others and may not yet have been put back in its box.
	I hope that Commissioner Kinnock will win through with his reforms. However, when one examines the detailed progress of those reforms, Commissioner Kinnock must occasionally be rather cast down as there has been little progress as regards the Commission making big reforms and adopting the role of servants, which the Members of the Commission are. They are servants of the people of Europe and of the nation states rather than their masters. As I say, there has been little progress in that regard despite the tribulations which poor President Santer experienced. I do not blame President Santer for the situation; I blame a system which is bad and which is not in any way improved by what we are being asked to do in the Nice Treaty in this respect. Therefore, I suggest that we would be far wiser not to tinker with this area, but to look for other deeper reforms to make a better Europe than the one we have today. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 174.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 36 (b),".

Lord Howell of Guildford: Once again, we are dealing with changes in the procedures by which important officials of the European institutions take office. On this occasion, the amendment concerns the Court of Auditors. I confess that, having read the details of the treaty, I am not 100 per cent clear as to how the QMV system now introduced into Article 247 operates. The details are set out in that article. In replying to the inquiries behind the amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify some of the issues.
	It appears that member states produce a list of people in accordance with the proposals of each member state. Those people are then appointed for six years, but the Council,
	"acting by a qualified majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt [that] list".
	However, if the list already exists, what does the QMV adoption process involve? It is possible that, as in relation to other matters, that process will not make very much difference. In that case, the same question arises: why do we bother?
	That aside, the work of the auditors is of vital and central importance to the processes, decisions, actions and activities of the European institutions. If there was any doubt about that in the past—I do not believe that there was; we and, indeed, all parties in Britain have always favoured very much the work of the auditors—it will have been eliminated or wiped out by the latest report from the auditors. That report, regrettably, found that a further £5 billion had been lost through fraud and mismanagement in the dispensation and implementation of Community programmes.
	That is extremely disturbing. It indicates that the Court of Auditors is doing a very good job indeed and that someone else is doing a very bad job. It indicates that the Court of Auditors provides a mechanism that really works and, therefore, again raises the question of why it needs to be changed or why we came to agree in discussions on the Nice Treaty that it needed to be changed. I make those short remarks simply to explain why the amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.

Lord Bruce of Donington: I have a short query to put to the Government. I understand from the Official Report of a week ago that the latest report by the Court of Auditors was published last Tuesday. My application to the Printed Paper Office for a copy of that report has so far proved fruitless. I do not blame its personnel, but no one knew where the report was. My latest information is that the report, which was referred to in the other place a week ago and which was reviewed in The Times last Tuesday, will not be available to noble Lords for another couple of months. I should appreciate it if it were possible to obtain a copy; the matter is of more than considerable interest to me—I have been following it for some time.
	The excellent report on the Court of Auditors by the European Union Committee, which has been published for some considerable time, has not yet been debated in your Lordships' House although it was recommended for debate in the House. I advise Members of the Committee that it would be premature to place any particular valuation on the Court of Auditors or on the procedures that it adopts in accordance with certifying whether a true and fair view is presented before having that debate. I do not doubt that those who arrange the business of the House can adequately explain why this excellent report has not been brought before the House before now. A debate on the report would enable the House to arrive at a more objective judgment on the value of the provisions and of the amendment.
	I hope that the Government can enlighten us a little further on what is happening in the whole audit field. Fraud there undoubtedly is. The Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House put the view adequately. I do not know what Senor Prodi has done about the matter, but such cases come before the Commission.
	The European Union Committee report would reveal the precise extent to which the Commission is involved with the Court of Auditors. I do not know how far the matter will ultimately prove to be relevant. I hope that the situation will be clarified; otherwise, I venture to suggest that my observation about debating the unintelligible—that is roughly what the treaty and the amendments are—is perhaps a little more apposite than many may have thought.

Lord Tomlinson: Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I have had the benefit of obtaining a copy of the Court of Auditors report on the last financial year, which was published last week. I do not pretend that my bedside reading has necessarily led me to read it cover to cover but I have read it substantially. There is no reference to fraud amounting to £5 billion. As ever, there is a fairly substantial reference to irregularities and the continuing reminder to member states in the Court of Auditors that 90 per cent of the EU budget—primarily the budget for the common agricultural policy and structural funds—is expended by the authorities of the member states. It states that most of the irregularities occur within member states, where accounting principles are inconsistent with those that are laid down at the centre. We should not put too much credence on the bold figures that have been quoted. There should be an attempt to distinguish between fraud and irregularity, and the report by the Court of Auditors does that.
	I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Bruce on the valuable report by the European Union Committee. It has now been around for several months—I believe that it was published in April or May of this year—and it should have been debated in your Lordships' House. It does not heap paeans of praise on the Court of Auditors; it makes substantial criticisms of the court—about the way in which the court is structured and works, about the lack of professional audit capacity in it and about its unpreparedness for enlargement, which is the major challenge for the EU. I am sure that the proposal about applying QMV in this case makes no substantial difference whatever to the competence of the Court of Auditors or its role.

Lord Biffen: I want to take up the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the availability of the European Union Committee's report on the Court of Auditors, which was proposed by this House. It was widely acclaimed and should be central to our discussions. The way in which the amendment is drafted inevitably prevents a wide-ranging discussion—it would be similar to the discussions that we have at Second Reading—of the topic. The situation is a commentary on the way in which we treat EU legislation. We treat it quite differently from our own domestic legislation; less determination—less precision—is involved. If ever there was a case for paying more attention to European legislation, this matter demonstrates that need.
	I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. I cannot pretend that the question of whether the appointment is made by QMV or not is a ditch in which one is prepared to die. I have a purely practical request: how will the effective work of the Court of Auditors be improved as a result of its being appointed by QMV? How will the decision to choose the members of the court be improved by undertaking qualified majority decisions? If a change of this character were essayed in our domestic legislation, it would be subject to the most relentless examination of exact cause and effect. That would be done not as a result of partisan politics but with a desire to ensure that whatever the House of Lords or Parliament fashioned as law should be justified and effective.

Lord Monson: The £5 billion may consist mainly of fraud or as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, suggested, of irregularities; whichever is the case, is it not sinister that there seems to be so little concern about it on the Continent and within European institutions? It appears that if one draws attention to it one is considered almost a "bad" European. If the amendment does anything to reduce that vast sum, it will be well worth supporting.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I feel that this amendment is unlikely to reduce the vast sums. As I hope that I shall explain to your Lordships, this is likely to make for a weaker Court of Auditors. If we follow, for the record, the Euro-creep at work in this amendment to the TEC, we need to look at what was said before the Treaty of Nice and before the Treaty of Amsterdam. The original wording that we are now changing may go back to the Treaty of Rome. Article 247, as it became at Amsterdam, was previously Article 188b. It is illuminating to see how much more rigorous the court was supposed to be under the original treaty.
	Article 188(b) simply said:
	"The Court of Auditors shall consist of 15 members".
	We then have the same qualification that they should be chosen,
	"from among persons who belong . . . in their respective countries to external audit bodies or who are especially qualified for this office. Their independence must be beyond doubt".
	That is not altered, although sometimes one wonders. The wording that we are changing with this treaty says:
	"The Members of the Court of Auditors shall be appointed for a term of six years by the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament".
	That was the position.
	I submit to your Lordships that the fact that it did not matter from where these auditors came but that they had to be approved by unanimity by the Council must be a point in their favour. On the other hand, we now move to an arrangement whereby there must be one national from each member state. I suppose the Treaty of Amsterdam masquerades as preparing the European Union for enlargement. The draftsman of this new clause had in mind one national from each of the new member states which, it is alleged, will one day join the European Union.
	Paragraph 2 of Article 247 continues as it was before and as I have quoted, and paragraph 3 states:
	"The Council, acting by a qualified majority . . . shall adopt the list of Members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State".
	I am sure your Lordships will be grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend Lord Howell has asked the Minister to give the Committee on exactly how that will work.
	Before, it did not matter where the auditors came from, but they had to be approved by unanimity and, therefore, they had a stronger chance of being the best people for the job than if one of them had to come from each member state. They were appointed for six years only and now their appointment is renewable. In view of the fraud or irregularities, or whatever one wants to call it, I believe that this is a serious situation.
	As we are talking about the Court of Auditors, perhaps I can ask the Minister whether he can tell the Committee what has happened in the wake of the mass resignation of the Santer Commission. I know that Mr Kinnock, a Commissioner, is in charge of cleaning up the place, but is there any evidence that the Court of Auditors' report has found great improvement as a result of Mr Kinnock's efforts? Is the £5 billion that is at stake any less than it was before?
	I have a question for the Minister that I could have tabled as a separate amendment. Of course, I could do so at the next stage of the Bill. However, it appears to me—I do not know what the Minister will think of this—that instead of having one person from each member state of the European Union, many of which are recipients and many of which caused the problems referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, with the common agricultural policy and so on (I do not exclude the United Kingdom from that), would it be better if the Court of Auditors consisted of representatives of the donor countries? Would that not be much fairer? What would the Court of Auditors find if it consisted of some good, solid German, Danish and British accountants? Does the Minister believe there is any chance that it would find a figure as small as £5 billion missing every year? I doubt it.
	As to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, on the innocence of the whole system—that irregularities take place in member states—the well-known policy when dealing with fraud is to follow the money and, if necessary, to withhold the money. If such matters are taking place in member states, we simply should not give them the money in the first place. Can the Minister tell me whether I am being oversimplistic or unreasonable?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, I shall deal with the issue raised by my noble friends Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Tomlinson. I do not know why the report of the Court of Auditors was not in the Printed Paper Office or how my noble friend Lord Tomlinson acquired it when my noble friend Lord Bruce did not. Of course, that is a matter for the authorities of the House. I can assure noble Lords that they will have heard the criticism and the matter will have to be sorted out.
	Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. The report of the Select Committee is not missing from the Printed Paper Office. That has always been available.

Lord Biffen: I never suggested that it was. I am quite aware that the report of the Select Committee has been available for some while. The fact that it has been available and has not yet been debated ahead of this debate appears to me to be quite deplorable. In that sense, I was echoing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There was either a slip of the tongue or, more likely, I misheard the noble Lord. When the report of the Select Committee is debated is a matter for the usual channels.
	I was taken aback by what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. I have done what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has done and looked at paragraph 3 of Article 247. The noble Lord is right. The members of the Court of Auditors shall be appointed for a term of six years. That is in the existing text.
	"The Council, acting by a qualified majority after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt the list of Members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State".
	That follows a provision in paragraph 1 that the Court of Auditors,
	"shall consist of one national from each Member State".
	It sounds to me as though a very small difference is proposed and all that is provided by qualified majority voting is that someone from one member state cannot veto the nominee of another member state. It strikes me that that provision may be useful, but may not always be required. It certainly does not lead me to consider that there is any danger in it. On the other hand, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, it does not lead me to consider that the work of the Court of Auditors will be improved. I believe that the possible difficulty in the decision-making process for the appointment of the Court of Auditors will be removed.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Another change is that the term will be renewable. It used to be for just six years. Under the new wording it will be renewable.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And why not, if they are good?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, will the Minister respond to my suggestion that perhaps the members of the Court of Auditors should consist of the donor countries only. Does he not believe that that would do much to stamp out fraud and so on? Does he believe that that is a good idea that Her Majesty's Government can put to their partners in Brussels?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not think that I was required to take that seriously. I am sorry. If there is one way to introduce disharmony between member states it is to say that the rich have the ability to override the wishes of the poor.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The rich would merely have the ability to follow their own money. Many of the problems that we face would not be there.

Lord Bruce of Donington: Can the Minister say how he regards the apparent distinction between fraud and irregularity? It would be useful to be informed of where the line is to be drawn between them. An irregularity is an irregularity. Therefore, the dividing line between that and fraud may be a question of intent. It may be a whole question which merits the decision of extremely skilled lawyers in the field. But it perhaps is a little dangerous—I put it no higher than that—to regard an irregularity as something that can be tolerated rather than checked and taken to its source and remedies for the "irregularity" instituted.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The rules of this House and the rules of this Committee do not provide for any sanctions against noble Lords asking questions or making points which are outside the area of the amendment that we are supposed to be considering. Self-denial says that I will answer questions about the amendment and not questions that clearly have nothing to do with it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In that case, if we are to decide whether the Court of Auditors is to be appointed in future on a system of qualified majority voting, with all the disadvantages that I have enumerated, would the Minister care to answer the question that I put to him, and which is well within the amendment, as to how the Court of Auditors' report this year compares with its previous reports? We are talking about the performance of the Court of Auditors whose composition we are asked to change. Also, how is Mr Kinnock getting on with his reforms which concern the Court of Auditors?

Lord Howell of Guildford: We all applaud the spirit of self-denial in which the Minister speaks.
	It is right and proper that we should focus on the amendments without excluding some of the reasoning—often the great edifice of reasoning—and events that lie behind the proposals in the Nice Treaty and the wish of the amendment that they might disapply in our own legislation.
	What we have established from the short debate is that while our amendment is unlikely to change anything very much, neither will the provision. This therefore is change for change's sake. In addition, Article 248 states:
	"The Court of Auditors shall draw up its Rules of Procedure. Those rules shall require the approval of the Council, acting by a qualified majority".
	That change is in heavy type. So there, too, is a tiny grandmother's footstep forward in directions as regards which we are right to be on our guard. Bearing in mind the need to make progress and that this is perhaps not a central provision either way, although there are questions left hanging in the air—Why bother? Why do it? Why sign up to it?—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 1, line 9, after "10," insert "other than Article 2, paragraph 41,"

Lord Howell of Guildford: These are similar provisions concerning the addition of QMV to other interesting and important areas in the structure of the European institutions. Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 refer to the extension of QMV to choosing the membership of the 350 member-strong Economic and Social Committee. Its members are appointed for four years. Amendment No. 30 concerns the Committee of the Regions.
	Both bodies are valuable institutions. I have heard them criticised. People have said that they are only talking shops and so on. Talk and the airing of opinions and views from certain interests in addition to those of the citizens of Europe through the, sadly inadequate, general democratic system—an envelope of democracy encasing the European institutions—should not be dismissed. The institutions form a part of the pattern of exchange and dialogue from the grass roots. They are rather like the buttresses of a cathedral that has not been built because the democratic deficit is so obvious at the centre of the system. But around the edge are institutions where hard work is done by people from the various member states who offer their expertise and views. Apparently, that is all to be governed by qualified majority voting. I wonder why. I beg to move.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howell. I would like to find out more about the Committee of the Regions. It was established in the Maastricht Treaty. It seems to have areas of compulsory consultation—economic and social cohesion, trans-European networks, public health, education, youth culture and so on. What has it achieved? My noble friend said that it was not a talking shop. If it is not a talking shop, what has it done? If it is a talking shop, why do we need it at all? If it is not, perhaps we could be told why it is so important that it needs to be dealt with by qualified majority voting and not by unanimity.
	It may be that the Minister can tell me this in a letter rather than in a debate, but it would be interesting to find out its remit and what it has done. I have not seen a report on the Committee of the Regions. I do not know whether it has a budget, whether its members are paid or unpaid, whether it gets its expenses, and where and how often it meets. I know that there is a so-called "bureau" of 40 members including a president and a vice-president, and so on. It seems to have a great deal of work to do. But I wonder whether it is worthwhile. What has the Committee of the Regions done? Perhaps a member of it can tell me. My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is here. He was a member of the Committee of the Regions. We may be further enlightened. I wait to hear if we get some information from a member of the very committee about which we are talking.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: One could ask other members of this House who are members of the Committee of the Regions. These things are not secret. There seems to be a view that the entire European Union is a conspiracy against Britain which, to my great surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, along with the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Stoddart, and others, appears to share. There seems to be a view that somehow there is a great secret plot going. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred to all these secret groups which now meet under the common and foreign security policy.
	I am happy to give—

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not think that I used the word "secret". I just believe that they exist and I was asking who they report to, what they do and whether we take any foreign policy decision without their agreement.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I can refer the noble Lord to some extremely boring academic articles—the first one written in 1977 by a dreadful character called William Wallace—to show that this is not secret. It has been much studied. These things are all out in the public domain if one wishes to learn. Trying to use this Committee to suggest that we need to be told at great length by the Government things that have been in the public domain for a very long time seems to be a little excessive.

Lord Bowness: I was tempted by my noble friend to rise to speak about the Committee of the Regions. I shall resist the temptation to speak at length, but implicit in my noble friend's remarks was the suggestion that the committee was a waste of time.
	I had the honour to be a member of the Committee of the Regions in its first mandate. I am no longer a member, but there are two Members of your Lordships' House who are still members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Tope and my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. The committee is representative of local and regional government from the member states of the European Union. The number of its members is determined according to the size of the member state.
	There is obligatory consultation by the Council and Commission on proposals put forward by the Committee of the Regions. I should have thought that noble Lords would be pleased to hear that members of the Committee of the Regions always hold a local mandate within their respective member states. Many of the initiatives of the European Union are implemented by local and regional government within the European Union. I know that this may bring shock and horror to some of my noble friends, but I was a member not only of the Committee of the Regions but also of the European People's Party group on that committee, and it seemed to me that it was entirely appropriate that local members who ultimately had to implement European legislation should have the opportunity of commenting at an early stage.
	In order not to take up too much of the Committee's time, I shall say only that within the first mandate when I was a member, the results of the committee's work were carefully monitored. At least two reports were produced, showing the areas in which members of the Committee of the Regions, through the opinions that they produced in open plenary session before the public, influenced proposals put forward either by the Council or the Commission. I am sure that since I have ceased to be a member, and as the committee has gone from strength to strength, its influence has grown.
	That committee is certainly not a talking shop. I can assure my noble friends that its members are not paid; they are given subsistence and a daily allowance. They meet principally in Brussels, although I believe that some members of the commissions and the bureau meet elsewhere from time to time. Certainly the bureau meets once in the country that holds the presidency.
	I see no reason why members of the Committee of the Regions should not be appointed on a qualified majority vote. They go forward on a slate from the member states. Local government in this country does not decide who they should be. It may forward names to the Secretary of State, but it is the Council which makes the appointment.
	I regret taking up the Committee's time, but it seemed that some of the work of the Committee of the Regions was being called into question and it was suggested that it was in some way secret. I thought it appropriate that somebody who served on that committee for four years, with other Members of your Lordships' House, should make it clear that that was not the case.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I do not know whether it is in order in these Committee proceedings to make a prophecy rather than to ask a question. My prophecy is that the Committee of the Regions, and the regions concerned, will eventually come forward, in a future amendment to the Treaty of Rome, as elected bodies that report directly to Brussels, and to a degree that is not yet clear to me, they will replace the parliaments of national governments. There is evidence for my remarks, not because of the inevitable drift of Euro-creep, to which I referred before, but Article 263 lays the ground for the change that I forecast. It refers to,
	"representatives of regional and local bodies, who either hold a regional or local authority electoral mandate or are politically accountable to an elected assembly".
	Those are the new words. One has seen so much of this over the years—from Maastricht, through Amsterdam to Nice. Unfortunately I was not involved in these matters during the passage of the Single European Act, but that is the drift of what the Committee of the Regions and regional assemblies are expected to be.

Lord Bowness: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I should explain that in the United Kingdom legislation that implemented Maastricht, we specified that members of the Committee of the Regions should hold a locally elected mandate. That was not the case for all member states. There were instances of people who had lost their local mandate but did not resign. To some extent that went to the heart of the Committee of the Regions which, far from being representative of Brussels, was representative of local and regional authorities from the different member states.
	The latter part of the phraseology is to take account of the Dutch and Belgian position and allow their burgomasters, who are appointed by the Crown and the governors of provinces, to serve, because they are accountable to their local authorities—to use our phraseology—although they are not directly elected by them. It is a guarantee of local democracy and local accountability working in the Committee of the Regions

Lord Acton: I understood the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, sat down. If I may also speak now, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, if he is familiar with the golden words in the Companion that debate must be relevant to the Question that is before the House. I do not wish to be anything but polite to the noble Lord who knows that I hold him in the highest esteem. He is a friend of 30 years, but he constantly speaks off the point. Prophecies are not relevant.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In answer to my noble friend Lord Acton, if I may refer to him as such, it is pertinent if one is considering how the Committee of the Regions is to be altered by this treaty that we consider what its future may be. I could have a bet with the noble Lord, if he would like that.

Lord Acton: Will the noble Lord answer my question? Is he familiar with that rule?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Of course, and I believe that I am within it.

Lord Waddington: We used to talk at the Bar of pleas in aggravation. I think that we heard a plea in aggravation rather than mitigation a short time ago. The trouble with the Committee of the Regions is that it is there for a purpose. There is only one conceivable purpose, which is to further the project of a Europe of the regions. As that is the last thing on earth that we want and would be very damaging to our interests in this country, I certainly look with no favour whatsoever on the Committee of the Regions. Anything that can be done to diminish its influence is something well done.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: First, I wish to ask the Minister a question. Does the treaty alter the method by which members of the Committee of the Regions from this country are appointed? Will the system be altered in any way?
	My other point is that, whether we like it or not, there is a worry in the country that the Committee of the Regions is working towards the regionalisation of Europe on a cross-continental basis. I have received letters about it. I was at a well attended meeting in Exeter—there were about 300 people there—where concern was expressed about the activities in relation to regionalisation. There was also a meeting in Bristol, attended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, to discuss the question of regionalisation. A member of the Commission attended that particular meeting. Naturally, people questioned why that individual should be at the meeting to discuss English regionalisation. That was a perfectly legitimate question to raise.
	To support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I understand that at a meeting of the European Movement at the University of Bristol, Dr Caroline Jackson, a Tory MEP, was asked whether regional assemblies would become regional governments and eventually cause Westminster to be abolished. She said yes. I did not hear the observation of the noble Lord, but I give way to him.

Lord Tomlinson: So that the noble Lord can get it, if Caroline Jackson has said it, that is game, set and match, is it not? It is all over.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: But game, set and match to whom—Caroline Jackson or Parliament at Westminster? The fact of the matter is that she is, presumably, a responsible person. She represents the South West. I know her reasonably well. She is a nice woman whom I like very much. I got on very well with her when I represented Swindon. She is presumably a responsible person—and that was the statement that she made. She may not have meant it. She may not have meant it in the way she said it. I do not understand why people would do that; nevertheless, although she may not have meant it, that was what she said. That is why people are worried, and it is legitimate to raise these concerns when we can in this Chamber since we are likely to be involved in future.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are not very many rules in this House, but I shall invent one: do not take bets on line. If the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, wants to give you his money, do it outside the Chamber, please.
	This is a debate on an amendment which would introduce qualified majority voting into the selection of members of the Economic and Social Committee and of the Committee of the Regions. The present situation is that both committees are consultative bodies on each of which the UK has 24 members. No change is proposed under the Treaty of Nice. The only change is the increase in the total number of members to accommodate the new member states. As I understand it, in practice in the past no member state has ever objected to another's nominations. The only reason that I can think of for the provision of qualified majority voting is the same as that which applies to the Court of Auditors; namely, it would prevent a member, unusually and without precedent, objecting to the nomination of another member state. Therefore, I believe that it is a useful but not very important measure—and certainly not worthy of the kind of debate that we have had this afternoon.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I moved the amendment in a very modest tone. I apologise if I have intruded into divisions on the Benches opposite about these very important bodies.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The divisions are entirely behind the noble Lord.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I said that in the knowledge that the noble Lord would rise to his feet to assert what is decreasingly true as the whole pattern of the debate on Europe shifts to a new direction. That will produce some surprising new divisions as Ministers will shortly learn.
	The conclusion is that this is a matter of no great importance. I must not distort the words of the Minister, but he indicated that this was not a tremendously progressive and creative provision. He could not see any point in our objecting to it; nor could he see very much point in the provision in the document. We are left with the feeling that we are dealing with rather small matters, although interestingly these kinds of debate uncover deeper issues, which perhaps are not dealt with either in the other place or this Chamber, about the way that Europe and our own affairs in relation to the rest of the Union are developing. Perhaps that should be debated more thoroughly.
	For the moment, we are concerned with two narrow amendments which are not vastly important, although the provisions are significant. We note yet again that they are small grandmother's footsteps in the direction of a qualified majority vote and away from unanimity. I suspect that in the end they will make some difference, but obviously we shall not get to the heart of the matter this evening. Therefore, in the same spirit that I moved the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 33 not moved.]

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert "(other than Article 3 of the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union)"

Lord Howell of Guildford: We come now to matters extremely central to the debate about the whole Treaty of Nice and the legislation that is passing through your Lordships' House in relation to it. It has been argued by Ministers and their supporters that the issue we are about to address adds up to the whole purpose of the treaty; namely, that it is the key to the process of enlargement, which we on this side support very strongly, and that if anyone tampers with it, somehow that process will be held up.
	There are two clauses in this group. I shall speak to a probing amendment that is concerned with the redistribution of voting weights in the Council which is covered by the article that we are considering. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has tabled an amendment which takes a larger vista and considers the whole of the crucial protocol. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make some comments in relation to that as well.
	I start with the narrow point. We are dealing here with new procedures which will require 169 votes—a qualified majority—for a decision to be reached. There is a new weighted population factor—62 per cent of the total—in deciding whether such a decision by 169 votes, or at least two-thirds of the majority of the Council, is valid. This raises some interesting arithmetical questions. One of the propositions of Ministers all along, including at the time of their return from the exhausting process of the Treaty of Nice, which many found an unsatisfactory event, was that somehow in the battles for weightings of Council votes and so on, the United Kingdom had come out of the scrum somewhat better off than when it went in.
	However, my noble friend Lord Tebbit observed the other day in this Chamber that, in fact, when one added up all the votes and looked forward to the enlarged Union—we read that the aim is that there should be a so-called "big bang" involving an extra 10 in 2004, so it is hoped, with Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria, coming along behind—the number of votes left to the United Kingdom appeared to be a considerably smaller proportion—a shrunken proportion—of the total. Therefore, there are two circles to be squared—or squares to be circled—and it will be interesting to hear the views of Ministers on how that is to be done.
	I move to the larger issue. Those of us who want to see enlargement move ahead might have hoped that the protocol would be the core of a treaty which might have gone through considerably more quickly. The present treaty has come up against the buffers—we hope they are temporary—of the Irish referendum. The reasons that that took place in the Republic of Ireland are associated not with enlargement or the protocol but with a mass of other issues which were hung on the treaty like decorations on a Christmas tree. That made it a treaty which many people—in particular those who want to see enlargement carried forward as quickly as possible—find unconstructive and undesirable.
	Contrary to the assertions of Ministers, we believe that the Treaty of Nice is not the vital key. There are important mechanical keys to the enlargement process although they are by no means the main obstacles or issues. In so far as the enlargement arrangements give to the new applicant countries fewer seats in the European Parliament on a population-merit basis it will make life more difficult.
	The Nice Council produced a timetable for enlargement negotiations and raised a number of issues. If we are concerned about enlargement, it would be better to concentrate on those issues rather than claiming that this protocol and these mechanics are the vital, determining factor for enlargement. Of course, they are not. The major issues lie in other areas and require the attention of all those who want to see enlargement go forward. It is a great pity if attention is distracted by the claim that the Treaty of Nice is the unlocking key. It sets back the enlargement cause.
	The Nice Council identified a list of issues: transport, taxation, justice and home affairs, energy and, above all, the need for the applicant countries to comply with the full body of the acquis communautaire—I understand that there are 80,000 pages—and the insistence not only on compliance and the signing up to it but also on implementation and enforcement over areas so vast that no human mind can get hold of them. These are matters which have to be handled by a set of computer programs. We are dealing with complexities of such detail in 1,001 different areas that those who seek to negotiate them and sign up to the acquis lose all track of the underlying purpose: to become members of the European Union, a totally understandable and desirable aim.
	Last week, I attended a conference in Budapest involving a number of Ministers from the leading applicant countries. The Treaty of Nice was not mentioned once. Concerns about enlargement, whether the timetable would be adhered to, and the problems involved, concentrated on quite different issues: the movement of labour, immigration questions and the common agricultural policy. Polish Ministers spoke. We must remember that there are more farms in Poland than in the whole of Germany and France added together. Concerns concentrated on security and the need to maintain the Atlantic dimension. In the centre and east of Europe one finds more determination that we should not undermine NATO to which Hungary and the Czech Republic have recently adhered and less satisfaction with the idea of autonomy, separate forces and so on. There were concerns—I noted them on visits to capitals of other applicant countries—that the complexity of the acquis is creating colossal problems. Some countries are being asked to adhere to standards which are not asked of existing members of the Union. That is one of the great issues. But when we look at enlargement, the protocol and the Government's arguments that this is essential and that the whole treaty coating and envelope are essential for enlargement, the biggest issue is none of those things: the biggest issue is the budget and who pays. Ten per cent of the EU budget is said to be set aside for financing enlargement. I have heard suggestions from Brussels that it could be as much as 25 per cent. Mr Stoiber, the Prime Minister of Bavaria, said recently in Berlin that if one wanted to remove obstacles one would have, first, to increase regional aid from 30 billion euros to 67 billion euros—I cannot work that out in dollars or pounds but the amount is more than doubled—and that for the process to move forward the financing of the common agricultural policy would have to increase from 34 billion euros to over 50 billion euros. He added, as have others, that for the applicant countries that is a moving target. People are considering ways in which the common agricultural policy can be reformed, as it must be. The constant difficulty of the applicant countries is not with the Treaty of Nice but with having to comply with a moving target.
	That is the reality of the enlargement debate. It is not a question of the Treaty of Nice being pushed through, without even a pause in relation to the Irish referendum. We are heading towards a Europe which could have 25 members and nearly half a billion people by 2004 with three more countries to come. Many of those countries face colossal awkwardnesses and difficulties.

Lord Radice: I thank the noble Lord for giving way; I do not yet know the conventions of the House. I accept all that he said about the real concerns of the entrant countries. However, if the weightings for the countries had gone wrong, the noble Lord would have heard a lot about the Treaty of Nice. The Polish Government were very concerned that the weighting of their vote should be of the same order, for example, as Spain, which has a similar population. There was a moment when it seemed that that might be so. We would have heard a lot about the Treaty of Nice if it had gone wrong.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am glad to accept the noble Lord's intervention. He carries enormous experience on these matters. I am sure that his intervention is in line with all the procedures and customs of this House, as I understand them. I am quite a new boy as well.
	The provisions in the protocol—and this is why I am moving a probing amendment—are important for the enlargement process to go forward. However, the noble Lord used the phrase "if it [the Treaty of Nice] had gone wrong". I hope that the Treaty of Nice will go right, but at present it is an undisputable fact that one country has refused to ratify by a referendum. Until that can be unscrambled, the Treaty of Nice will not go forward. If we had had a smaller treaty—a plan B—with such provisions in the protocol it might by now be all over and done with. There would have been no objections in Dublin or anywhere else. Unfortunately, the decision, supported by Her Majesty's Government, was that the Nice Treaty should include other provisions which have nothing to do with enlargement and which have greatly weighed down the treaty-making process. Those issues to do with enlargement did not feature very much.
	What will be the result? Those of us who want to see enlargement are entitled to raise these questions with some firmness. It is perhaps a cause of anger that far from helping enlargement, clumsy treaty making is getting in its way. What is happening? In Warsaw we see that hostile europhobe parties—they are not merely euro realists or sceptics—are gaining more influence and now have 15 per cent of the votes. There is enormous concern about the acquis provisions on borders and about Schengen. Poland has huge difficulties when considering how to transfer its border from the west, the old Schengen border, to the east, vis-à-vis Russia, which has always presented a porous and different kind of border. That will require vast upheavals and social changes.
	In the Czech Republic we find growing disenchantment and worries expressed over whether Slovakia will be included. I hope that it will be, otherwise the Czechs will have to consider putting a Schengen border between the Czech Republic and Slovakia; namely, a border erected between two nations which, until only a few years ago, were one country. That border is particularly permeable.
	I had an opportunity to put questions to the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr Orban. We met on a public occasion and there is no harm in repeating his comments. He made it perfectly clear that he seeks a flexible Europe. He is uneasy about centralisation and the growth of qualified majority voting. The Hungarians also face nightmarish problems as regards the Schengen provisions vis-à-vis Romania if that country remains outside the EU. The above are immensely difficult problems which we shall address with all our energies.
	I turn now to the brave Baltic states, which I have visited on many occasions and for which all have a soft spot. It is often forgotten that Estonia was founded, in effect, by British actions taken in the 1920s before that country entered the long dark night of absorption into the Soviet Union. Those states have been asked to put up tariffs. I understand that they are not worried about it, but that is what joining the European Union means. However, they are concerned that they may become second-class members of the common agricultural policy. That concern also applies to other countries.
	The Cyprus problem is beginning to burn. No noble Lord is better qualified to comment on that than the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who is not in his place. However, the problems with Turkey and Greece are extremely dangerous. There is a real threat that Greece may veto and obstruct the entire process if membership for Cyprus is delayed. Equally, Turkey may cause all the trouble it can if the situation turns the other way around; namely, if Cypriot membership is accelerated. Furthermore, smaller countries such as Latvia insist that they want to see a Europe of nations.
	The cause of Europe has been damaged by the botched nature of the treaty proposals and evidence of the big boys ganging together over them. That is why the famous Euro-barometer records waning enthusiasm. At the beginning of this year it recorded that some 44 per cent of the EU was in favour, but I gather that the percentage is now much lower.
	We agree with the Minister, who commented yesterday at the Dispatch Box that considerable benefits will be enjoyed in an enlarged market. Ironically, we seem to be moving to a situation in which the applicant states, whose position would be assisted by this protocol if only we could move it forward and it was not bogged down in the rest of the treaty, are set to grow faster than the near stagnant member states of western Europe; in particular they will grow faster than Germany. Luckily, however, for the moment the British economy seems to be doing well.
	When we are told that unless we tick the boxes on the Nice Treaty enlargement will be held up, then we are entitled to be more than cynical and to say that, on the contrary, if we were to tick all the boxes in the Nice Treaty we shall find ourselves in deeper trouble. Indeed, that is the case already. If, as many advised at the time, we had concentrated on the simple mechanical changes needed to correct the weighting, distribute properly the seats in the European Parliament, get the structure of the Commission right and so forth, we would now be moving ahead on the process of enlargement.
	It is deplorable that enlargement has taken so long. It should have taken place after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the liberation of Czechoslovakia soon after. Those of us who visited those regions at the time told our dear friends in Prague—it may have been misleading—that in only a matter of months, or perhaps a year or two, they would join the European Union. That was 12 years ago. So much for enthusiasm about enlargement.

Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he seriously suggesting that all the problems he has adumbrated—the 10,000 pages or so of the acquis communautaire, the challenges of economic adjustment, abolition or reformation of the CAP, and questions about the budget—could have been dealt with far more quickly had we not put in place a treaty along these lines? That appears to be the burden of the noble Lord's argument.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I do not suggest that. If that is how my comments have been perceived by the noble Lord, then mea culpa, it must be the inadequacy of my presentation. I had thought that I made it clear that these are the obstacles and issues and thus the areas to which energies should be directed. I was going to go on to say that perhaps, when looking back over the past 12 years—and, I confess, here moving to the very edge of the amendment—if we had spent less time on manufacturing endless treaties and more time on addressing the issues I have outlined in my remarks—and perhaps building treaties around their resolution—we would be a little closer to the goal of enlargement than, humiliatingly, is now the case.
	I hope that it takes place in 2004, which will mark 15 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. That is far too long, but when enlargement is secured, it will reunite the Europe for which a previous generation fought and gave their lives. That is a fine objective. I should hate to see bureaucracy and the machinations of certain treaty arrangements get in its way. I beg to move.

Lord Watson of Richmond: The noble Lord described an eastern Central Europe which is barely recognisable. If it is truly the noble Lord's conviction that in the capitals of the applicant states governments hold their heads in their hands in despair when confronted by the complexities of the acquis communautaire—for which they must buy large computers to scan an unforeseeable future; although one noble Lord is strong on prophecy and it might be cheaper to hire him—that they perceive as an absolutely unalterable barrier, then that conviction is, frankly, quite unreal. The truth is that the acquis communautaire, although complicated, provides an important blueprint and plan for the modernisation of eastern Central Europe.
	It is greatly to the good fortune of Europe at this historic moment that the treaties are in place, that the acquis communautaire is a single body and that, therefore, a proper negotiating agenda has been agreed; namely, a road map by which the enlargement of Europe can proceed. If all those achievements were wished away, which clearly is what many Members of the Committee desire, then to be frank, Europe would be in turmoil. We would certainly be dependent on prophecy and even the biggest computer would not be able to solve our problems.
	The fact is that membership of the European Union is the great driving force for modernisation in the eastern Central European states. Far from enthusiasm waning for membership of the EU—I do not know which polls the noble Lord has consulted; they differ from the ones I have seen and from the evidence of my own visits to some of the capitals—it is clear that determination to proceed with enlargement is formidably strong. Are we to say that the populations who will that and their governments which express that are foolish, nai ve and misled? Have they not listened to the prophecies, and thus do not believe in the conspiracy theories? Should we in some way educate them in a new clarity and realism? No, that is not the right approach.
	The fact is that the Nice Treaty, although somewhat inelegant in parts, is essential to the enlargement process. It has clarified the important question of weighting of votes in the Council. It has introduced an element of legitimacy to the voting system, which is extremely important because it would be difficult to proceed if that had not been achieved. As Europe stands at present, it is vital that the three larger countries of the present Union hold their positions. That was not easy to negotiate at Nice, as we all know. However, it was achieved.
	We must distinguish between the endless and multiplying problems foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He has examined every aspect of the European Union for grandmother's footprints, or someone else's footprints; there are always more footprints in the snow. Every time one of them melts, it is replaced by dozens more. Indeed, it would be possible to become positively hectic, even neurotic, in the pursuit of those footprints. I sometimes wonder whether, on occasion, that might be the case.
	But the truth is that the vast majority of opinion expressed by the applicant states is clear: enlargement should take place. The Treaty of Nice has been welcomed as a necessary step. The Government are absolutely determined to go ahead with it. I do not think that it is right, for this Committee or those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, to stand in the way of what is clearly the historic right of the applicant countries and an unarguable demand that we should move forward.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to speak to my amendment, which is Amendment No. 34A. I believe that it goes to the heart of the enlargement process. The protocol on enlargement deals with institutional reform in some detail, including the re-weighting of votes, the number of members of the European Parliament and members of the Commission. To that limited extent it is about enlargement. Perhaps it is one of the few parts of the treaty that is actually about enlargement.
	That is all very well. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has said. I am sure that there is a groundswell of desire in the candidate countries to join the European Union. But the real barrier to enlargement in the end, apart from the reforms which are being carried out, is the common agricultural policy. It seems to me that without reform of that policy within the treaty there will be more barriers to enlargement. It will be harder for the candidate states to enter the European Union.
	Of the five candidate countries at the moment, Poland and Hungary have two very significant and highly important agricultural sectors. Indeed, I believe that Poland has more farmers than the whole of the rest of the European Union together. I agree that most are small farmers, but farming represents about 20 to 25 per cent of Poland's GDP compared with about 3 per cent for this country. So for Poland it is a very serious problem.
	Therefore, it seems somewhat irrational to make preparations to receive new members before we have decided what the ground rules are, how they are going to be accepted and how the CAP is to be reformed to allow the candidate countries to join the Union. In the way the CAP is currently constituted there does not appear to be any provision by which the candidate countries can be admitted, because there is no appetite for reform. Indeed, the President of the Commission has gone on record as saying that there will be no reform or even review of the CAP before 2006. He has been supported in that view by the French Prime Minister.
	It is astonishing that, given their importance, the chapters on agriculture have not been opened for discussion with the candidate countries. But the agriculture Ministers of Poland and Hungary have made it perfectly clear that they expect that their farmers will enjoy all the benefits, if I can call them that, of the common agricultural policy.
	So how is that circle to be squared? How can we meet the legitimate expectations of the agricultural sectors of the candidate countries without reforming the CAP? How is it to be reformed? How is it to be dealt with? As I have said, there is no prospect of real reform. It has been tinkered with at the edges in the past few years. It has been watered down and proposals have been made but nothing significant has happened. Certainly, nothing is going to be done to radically reform the CAP, which is necessary.
	It appears to me that there are three possible scenarios. The first is that some of the current recipient countries—France is the largest—will volunteer to give away some of their receipts to the candidate countries. I do not know whether that has been proposed, but we have not been knocked over in the rush for that to happen.
	Secondly, the other proposal, which is equally unlikely, is that the CAP budget of the European Union will be enlarged to accommodate the new entrants and their agricultural sectors so that they can receive the subsidies that the current members receive. The third scenario, which seems to be on the cards at the moment, is that the candidate countries are to be told that they will have to comply with all the rules and regulations of the CAP but that they will not receive subsidies because there is no money and they will have to make shift with that scenario. It is rather like being an off-peak member of a tennis club where one pays one's dues, obeys the rules without being able to change them but can use the hard courts only on weekday mornings.
	I do not believe that that is acceptable to any of the aspirant countries with such large agricultural sectors. My noble friend Lord Howell was absolutely right that a smaller treaty, perhaps beginning with the title "Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union", encompassing the reform of the common agricultural policy, would have made the enlargement process much more speedy. I did not realise that it had taken quite as long as my noble friend said, namely, about 15 years. That seems astonishing. I gather that the first countries to join will not do so for another three years, if then, and only if the CAP is reformed. I believe that application and reform of the CAP should be coterminous and therefore should be included in the treaty; hence the reasoning behind my amendment. If the treaty is to be about enlargement, surely it has to include agriculture and the CAP.

Lord Grenfell: I believe that it has been said that a misunderstanding repeated often enough may begin as an embarrassment but usually ends up as a matter for widespread mirth. I do not know how many times I have heard it repeated in this House as regards the Treaty of Nice that reform of the CAP does not require a change to the treaty; that reform of the CAP is going forward on a parallel track and will continue until it is completed. But to try to put the CAP into the Treaty of Nice does not make any sense whatsoever.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: That is the noble Lord's opinion, but I do not agree. I believe that putting the CAP into the treaty would hasten the process of enlargement.

Lord Waddington: I was slightly surprised by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond. It is difficult for us to speak with authority about attitudes in each of the applicant states. But it would be a very brave person who asserted that all these applicant states want to join a tightly-knit club subject to more and more rules dictating how they should approach essentially domestic problems rather than that they should wish to join a union of sovereign states. In so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, it would be a very brave person who asserted that it is not the latter which most of them would prefer.
	I have always looked with great dismay at the Treaty of Nice, because it is ironical that we should be saying that it was a treaty to pave the way for an enlarged community and yet we are putting more and more difficulties in the path of the applicant countries. We are saying, for instance, that they could not join unless they accepted that they had to have rules in this or that direction, and as a result of a step taken last year, for instance, they had to have an involved system of works councils and bargaining in the workplace which have nothing whatsoever to do with the normal rules of any club. That was how I reacted to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, looked at the matter.

Lord Watson of Richmond: Would the noble Lord accept that, by definition, the applicant states have applied to join the European Union as defined by the existing acquis communautaire? That is a matter of historical fact. Whether the noble Lord likes the European Union as it exists within the present acquis communautaire is another matter: whether he believes that they would like a different kind of Europe is a matter for speculation. I have heard that the candidate countries are absolutely determined to join the European Union as it is at present defined by the acquis communautaire. A number of countries have made it quite clear, for example, that they would like to join the European monetary union and the euro when it becomes a reality.

Lord Waddington: It is certainly not what I would like, but that is not at issue at all. I am just saying that I doubt very much whether it was wise or proper, in advance of saying that these countries could join the Union, to impose more and more rules which had nothing whatsoever to do with completion of the single market.
	We were discussing this earlier. I would not have risen had it not been asserted by the noble Lord that all the changes that have taken place are meat and drink to the countries which wish to join. I think that is complete and utter nonsense. If those countries had been consulted about some of the extensions of qualified majority voting provided for in the Nice Treaty, they would have asked, as I do, what on earth that has got to do with enlargement of the community. It quite clearly has nothing to do with it.

Lord Monson: It seems to be glibly imagined by enthusiasts of greater European integration that the electorate of the Republic of Ireland will tamely come to heel and reverse their recent decision before long, certainly within the next couple of years. But supposing the Irish electorate stick to their guns, as they show every sign of doing? What then?
	The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, said that the ratification of the Nice Treaty by all member states is a necessary step towards enlargement. He is absolutely right. Is it seriously imagined that enlargement can take place with countries not knowing how many votes they will have in the Council of Ministers and how many seats they will have in the European Parliament?
	It is also glibly imagined, I am afraid, that there will be no problem about admitting Cyprus while continuing to keep Turkey at arm's length. The Greeks certainly want that to happen—there is no secret about that—but others are rather more discreet. The Germans secretly aim towards that situation. If that were to happen, it would without any question be a breach of the Zurich agreements. Turkey would not take it lying down and it would have the most serious consequences. We should reflect upon this matter.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When I spoke to the previous group of amendments, I referred to a meeting about regionalisation being held at Exeter, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. That of course was a slip of the tongue; it should have been the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate and sincerely hope that I have caused him no difficulty with his right reverend friend.
	As to the amendment, I am the odd man out—no, I am not quite the odd man out—because I do not believe that enlargement will be good for the Community or for this country. I say that I am not the odd man out because I understand that Sir Edward Heath—who, as noble Lords will know, is no political friend of mine—takes the same view; that is, that enlargement may well do a lot of damage to the Union rather than improve it.
	There is some evidence that this will be so. After all, we started out as the Common Market; we became the European Economic Community; we then became the European Community; now we are the European Union. So virtually at each enlargement we have found that there has been not only a widening but a deepening.

A noble Lord: Hear, hear!

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am glad that a noble Lord said "Hear, hear". It confirms what I am saying. At each stage there has been a deepening, and with that deepening has come centralisation. That, I fear, is what will happen—and, indeed, is happening—through this treaty. There will be a greater accrual of powers to the centre and a greater bureaucratic control by the centre.
	I do not believe that that is what the British people intended—although they were not consulted about it—when they joined the Common Market. They believed that they were joining a free market—not a single market; that did not come until 1985—where individual countries had free trade between them and co-operated on a wide range of issues. That has not turned out to be the case.
	Whether we like it or not, it is becoming increasingly obvious from the messages coming from heads of state, from members of the Commission, from Members of the European Parliament and from Parliament itself, that that is not the intention. The intention is to build a state of union, and a good many of the necessary building blocks are there. I believe that that would be a disaster for Europe because, as we have found in the past, as various bits of the new state find themselves disadvantaged in relation to other bits of the state, they will rebel and the whole edifice will fall apart.
	That will be so especially if we are not prepared—I am not sure that we are prepared at the moment, although we may be later on—to have a much bigger central budget. The United States has a central budget of 25 per cent of GDP. If you are going to redistribute and bring countries up to a standing which is acceptable throughout, you will need central taxation. Indeed, we have already seen signs of that. The Belgian presidency said that there would be a need for direct taxation levied by the European Parliament, and the European Parliament believes that there should be a central tax levy.
	That is what is facing us. I do not know whether people in this country understand that. When the MacDougal Committee reported on expansion in, I think it was, the 1970s, it said that we would need at least 7.8 per cent of GDP to be raised as central taxation for redistribution in an expanded community. But 7.8 per cent of our GDP is about £78 billion. We have to grasp these kinds of issues if we are to go ahead with a successful expansion.
	I do not believe that it is possible. I do not believe that people are prepared to accept what goes with real expansion, real enlargement. I believe that, because of that, the whole project will collapse—which would not bother me; I should be delighted—and endanger the existing community. The Committee should take that into account.

Lord Tugendhat: Perhaps I may delay the Committee for a minute and a half or so because I should not like the debate to end without a single Conservative voice being raised in favour of the Treaty of Nice. I say that because the Treaty of Nice is designed to bring about a result that has been the objective of successive Conservative governments over the years.
	I realise that many noble Lords on these Benches, and many other of my friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party, have changed their positions somewhat in recent years, but the fact remains that the original objective of Conservative governments (that is, to bring about the enlargement of the Community) was a good objective in the interests of this country and of a wider Europe.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Howell that it is an absolute disgrace that enlargement was delayed so long after the fall of the Berlin Wall. He is absolutely right in that, as in many other things. If we were by any mischance to reject the Treaty of Nice after the Irish referendum that has already been referred to, that would make the task of enlarging the EU immeasurably greater. I cannot believe that either my noble friend or many others who have been in the Conservative Party a long time or have served in Conservative governments would want that to happen.
	I hope that the Treaty of Nice will be passed as it stands. It is a curate's egg, by no means perfect in all respects and has some features that I would have preferred not to see, but it is designed to bring about a result that would be in the interests of Britain and Europe and one for which the Conservative Party has fought over many years.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may try to answer some of that from my noble friend. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke—whose amendment I support—I fear that enlargement may be a serious mistake for the continent of Europe. I do not understand why the Conservative Party still thinks that enlargement is a good idea. I say to my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, if I could have his attention for a moment—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Would the noble Lord prefer it if we left, to allow the debate to continue in private? I feel intrusive.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The Minister is of course free to leave but I do not think that that would improve the quality of our debate.
	I was saying that I do not understand why the Conservative Party—on whose Benches I still sit, just—goes on saying that enlargement is a good idea. I had the privilege of sitting on your Lordships' Select Committee from 1992 to 1996, which I am no longer allowed to do. In those days, the position of the then Conservative government was entirely clear. It supported enlargement because it thought that "widening" would lead to "weakening" of the centre—the powers of Brussels and so on.
	If we did not know before, we know for certain now—with the Treaty of Nice before us—that "widening" definitely leads to "deepening". It cannot be widened without increasing the powers at the centre—of Brussels. I am at issue with my party. I understand why it adopted that position but suggest that it is no longer tenable.
	I accept also that the political classes at least in most of the new democracies of eastern Europe want to join the European Union—although my noble friend Lord Howell revealed that many of the peoples of eastern Europe and some of their political leaders are beginning to wake up to what joining the EU may mean. Why is it in their interests to have struggled so valiantly to escape communism, only to submerge their hard-earned democracies into what seems to be an emerging undemocratic EU megastate? I acknowledge that countries enjoy the EU subsidies that they receive while they are queuing to join and that the prospect of joining the EU has on a few occasions made some applicant countries—I have Romania in mind—behave better than they might have done otherwise. Neither of those two qualifications condones the colossal mistake that enlargement would mean for their emerging democracies. It is clear that those emerging democracies and emerging economies cannot afford the 80,000 pages of mostly labour and social-related legislation or the latest raft of stuff from Brussels—which particularly hits small businesses, as we debated on the first day in Committee. All those countries really need is free trade, which is denied them by our good partners in the European Union. They need also defence through NATO.
	In earlier debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has said that proper or sufficient enlargement of the kind that the Government would like to see is not possible without the Treaty of Nice, but it is. The EU has been enlarged on several occasions when new applicant countries have joined. Even with the Treaty of Nice, there will need to be a separate treaty of accession with each country that joins. If people want enlargement, they certainly do not need the protocol. Enlargement can be achieved country by country. Voting can be adjusted, as in the past, as each new country joins.
	We Euro-realists love the Europe of nations—the continent of different cultures and glorious civilisations—but hate the Treaty of Rome, the European Union and everything that comes out of it. We believe that democracy is the guardian of peace in Europe and elsewhere. On the whole, democracies do not provoke conflicts but forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations nearly always end in disaster. I could give the Committee many examples, including Northern Ireland, the Middle East, most of Africa, Yugoslavia and the Trans-Caucasus. The recipe for conflict and aggression is some form of undemocratic or even fascist leadership and a lack of true democracy.
	If applicant nations from central and eastern Europe can keep their democracies and trade freely together and with their neighbours under NATO, we shall see peace and prosperity—and not run the risk of the European dream descending into the conflict that I fear lies ahead.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the interesting way in which he moved Amendment No. 34 and spoke to Amendment No. 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. The protocol is important but that is not the only issue. I was seized with a huge sense of relief when the noble Lord remarked that the matters involved were so vast that no one mind could get hold of them.
	The noble Lord gave an illuminating description of his visit to Budapest and elsewhere in central and eastern Europe last week and said that he had not been tackled about the Treaty of Nice. His experience cannot be so different from mine. When people are worried about an issue, they tend to raise it. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Radice. I am sure that if people had not wanted the noble Lord to support the treaty, they would have said so. Most of the people to whom the noble Lord spoke probably did want him to support the treaty today. No one is disputing that in a number of European countries there will be some people who disagree with their government. But it is a function of democracy that we deal with the elected governments of the day, and with the view that they put forward on behalf of the people whom they represent.
	The noble Lord spoke again about his vision for Europe in the future. He set it out with the same eloquence when we debated the Bill at Second Reading. He steered a course between his European credentials—of which I am sure he is justifiably proud—and the position of his party. However, I felt that in raising the points that he did, he was properly addressing the issues that are to be raised at the IGC in 2004: for example, defining and de-limiting the European Union's competence; simplifying the treaties which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, criticised; making those treaties easier to understand to the ordinary citizens of Europe; improving accountability and transparency; and the role of national parliaments. When the noble Lord spoke about the "enormous complexity", he was quite right. That is why his view has—if I may draw this from his remarks—at least some points of commonality with that of the Prime Minister; namely, that these subjects should rightly be discussed at the next IGC in 2004.
	The noble Lord went on to say that the simple mechanical processes are important. Indeed they are—and they are here in the protocol. The protocol sets out the changes to the institutions of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, which are in the Government's view essential for the European Union to enlarge—I believe the word I used previously to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was "successfully". It is an important mechanical key, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and I use his phraseology. It is not the only key, but it is certainly an important one. First, to mention a relatively minor matter, we need to repeal the protocol on the institutions which was agreed at Amsterdam. It has obviously been overtaken by the Nice treaty.
	Amendment No. 34 by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would strike out only Article 3 of the protocol concerning vote re-weighting. Amendment No. 34A by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, would strike out the whole protocol. That is the difference between the two amendments. Either way, the Government believe that the Opposition is misguided in tabling these amendments. Perhaps I may attempt to explain why.
	First, we are re-weighting the Council votes to give the United Kingdom and other big member states—that is, Germany, France and Italy—more power relative to the small or medium-sized member states. The effect is that the UK's relative voting power—I stress the word "relative" in relation to current members—goes up. Whereas under the present arrangements we have three times the voting power of Denmark, following the agreement at Nice we shall have four times its voting power. That is a fairer distribution in relation to our population size. There could be a blocking minority, consisting of Germany and two of the other three countries—that is, the United Kingdom, Italy and France.
	Secondly, agreement was reached at Nice on a new level of seats in the European Parliament following enlargement. Its overall size will increase to 732 in an EU of 27 members. The number of UK MEPs will fall to 72 from the current 87 seats. We discussed this in some detail during the debate at Second Reading.
	It is the Government's position that this is a good deal for the United Kingdom. In designing a system for almost double the current number of member states it was inevitable that the United Kingdom would have fewer seats—particularly if the size of the European Parliament was to remain manageable. But the reduction will be gradual.
	Thirdly, it was agreed at Nice that, once the EU reaches 27 member states, there will be less than one commissioner per member state, chosen on a basis of equal rotation. Again, that is an important reform, which will help to keep down the size of the Commission—a point with which I am sure many Members of the Committee have a great deal of sympathy—so that is a manageable size after enlargement.
	So we have in the protocol the arrangements that will enhance Britain's power in the Council, relative to the small and medium-sized countries; and which will reform the Commission and keep the Parliament to a manageable size, but with significant numbers of MEPs remaining. We believe that the changes are in the interests of the United Kingdom.
	I turn briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. My noble friend Lord Grenfell is right. Reform of the CAP does not require treaty change. The noble Lord may feel that treaty changes are desirable, but they are not mandatory. That was the point that my noble friend was making. We shall negotiate on the CAP, as I have had occasion to state previously, and as the noble Lord noted, the chapters with the applicant countries have not yet been opened, but they will be opened by the beginning of next year. One would, of course, expect all those who are going to negotiate on such issues to adopt a tough negotiating position. I would do so; so would any other sensible negotiator. The point is what is negotiated in the end, not the position that people adopt in prospect.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may put a question to the Minister. It is gracious of her to give way. When she says to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that treaty change is not necessary to reform the common agricultural policy, will she agree that enlargement is not possible without reform of the common agricultural policy? While we are on that point, will she agree also that the President of France has assured the world, in the strongest conceivable terms, in the past fortnight that France will not tolerate any change in the common agricultural policy from France's point of view—it is very advantageous to France—until 2006? Of course, it may be just a negotiating ploy, but if it is so, does it not put the process back a bit?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am sure the noble Lord will accept it when I say that I have sat round negotiating tables in recent months and heard people declare one position with absolute certainty; and I have seen some very different outcomes—most notably in Doha only last week. If we were to insist on CAP reform before enlargement, we should make enlargement a hostage to those member states which are least keen on it. We must be careful about the way in which we approach this matter. We are approaching it very much in the interests of the United Kingdom.
	Perhaps I may turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in relation to Ireland. The Irish Government have asked us to go ahead with our ratification process. That may not suit the position of some Members of the Committee. I understand that. But the Irish Government are the democratic leaders of their country. They have asked us and our European partners to proceed with our ratification process, and we are proceeding, on the unequivocal mandate that we have as a result of this year's general election. I admired very much the unequivocal stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, rode to his rescue and said that he, too, was not too keen on enlargement. But whatever else the treaty is about, it has been very much in the public domain a treaty about successful enlargement. I believe that the Government have a mandate on which to proceed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, gave balance to the debate. He agreed with his noble friend about the "disgrace" in terms of the length of time taken for enlargement. He was right to say that if we wreck the treaty we shall delay enlargement even further. The noble Lord knows his noble friend far better than I do, but I cannot help feeling that his noble friend on the Front Bench will understand the weight of his remarks on that point.
	The Government are right to resist these amendments, for the reasons which I hope I have spelt out clearly.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reply so clearly to the amendments, which, in the case of those in my name, are narrowly focused on the weighting issues. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but I do not think that she explained how, in an enlarged Community, eventually the voting power of the United Kingdom will be rather less. I do not attach too much weight to the issue of less or more voting power. It is my personal view that the real problem lies in the over-centralisation of power in the European institutions. If there had been any beef behind subsidiarity, which turned out to be an empty vessel, or any determination at Nice or at other summit gatherings to return to nation states some of the powers that in today's conditions it is inappropriate to deal with centrally, even though it may have been appropriate to do so in the past, the problem of weighting and the feeling that powers were going to be taken and important decisions made at a high level against national interests would be much reduced.
	The arithmetic suggests that, while with the current members—the words that the noble Baroness used—the share of British votes is up, eventually, when the enlargement takes place, our share will go down. I do not know when that "eventually" will be. The Commission has produced an upbeat report about enlargement, suggesting that the whole thing can be tied up for 10 countries by 2004, which is not at all far away. At that point we shall have a shrunken role.
	I do not make a major issue of that, but we should get it right for the record. The noble Baroness is right about current numbers, but for the longer term Ministers are not correct in saying that Britain will have a larger share of the votes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Watson, spoke with great authority and knows a great deal about the mood in the applicant states. We get different impressions from the different places that we visit. There is an opinion poll machine called the Euro-barometer—I find these things very inaccurate—that seems to indicate that popular support for the whole project is waning in a number of applicant countries. But if the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asks why we should believe such polls, he has a friend in me because I find that they can be extremely unreliable.
	The generation who first took power after the velvet revolution, who hoped that enlargement would come soon, were driven by a very understandable essential impulse: they wanted to join the club of Western democracy, as expressed by the European Union, and to put as much political space as they could between themselves and the then Soviet Union. The older generation in many central European capitals remains of that view. Despite the new friendship and hand-clasping in Texas by the very skilled Mr Putin—whose Russian Government have been very helpful in the present global anti-terrorism campaign—there remains a deep feeling engraved in many minds by hideous memories that Russia is not the body to be politically associated with and the European Union will give some protection. Running alongside that is the equal wish that NATO should be enlarged still further.
	We can see these debates unfolding. The Prime Minister recently made some interesting comments about whether Russia might become related to NATO in some form. This touches on that debate. The older generation wants to get away from Russia and join Western organisations, but the younger generation wants to wait and see whether the modern Russia is really as dedicated to dangers, expansion and territorial seizure as Communist and pre-Communist Russia was for hundreds of years or whether we have a new Russia. They are not sure that it is quite such a high priority to distance themselves from Russia. If they want to distance themselves, they want to ask a question that they did not ask at the beginning: what is the cost? They want to know how much they have to pay in the approval of the acquis to join the club. That mood is undoubtedly present. It leads to a lively debate. It is basically a pro-European—indeed, pro-European Union—debate, but it raises fundamental questions about the governance of Europe that were not addressed at Nice and towards which I do not believe that the Nice Treaty was helpful.
	Of course I respect the extremely experienced views of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. He speaks not only as an experienced business person but as an ex-Commissioner. His judgment is that the treaty is essential to enlargement. Other judgments are that the treaty may help if it works—as long as it works, as the noble Lord, Lord Radice, suggested. Some of my noble friends have argued all along that the treaty is heading for trouble and that before we are through we will have to think about recasting treaty arrangements to move the enlargement process forward.
	We have probably quoted Mr Prodi too much and I know that the Minister is tired of my quotations from him, but he let the cat out of the bag when he said that if plan B is necessary and the Irish referendum does not turn Irish opinion round, we will have to come to other means of carrying forward these mechanical arrangements.
	We feel that this is the wrong way to achieve the greater European unity and the re-unification of Europe that is now within our grasp. We are not convinced that giving a fair wind to the whole treaty, with all its warts and difficulties, is necessarily the best way to achieve that objective.
	In the light of a number of comments, I shall not press Amendment No. 34, but I understand that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has another view on his Amendment No. 34A, which he will no doubt utter in a moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: moved Amendment No. 34A:
	Page 1, line 12, after "Protocols" insert "(other than the Protocol on the Enlargement of the European Union)"

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I am grateful to the Minister for answering my questions, but I remind the Committee that the Nice Treaty is dead at the moment. We are debating a treaty that is null and void, so it is sensible to start again and see how it might be better drawn up. The Irish people may be asked to look at a very different treaty—as may we all. It may not contain all the centralising proposals that we have been discussing during the past two days of debate. It may be more tightly drawn. Agriculture is a central block on enlargement. If enlargement is what everybody wants, agriculture will have to be dealt with in the treaty. I have not had enough reassurance on that, so I shall test the opinion of the Committee on my amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 140.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee begins again not before nine.

Moved accordingly, and, On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Cleaner Coal

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant.
	My Lords, after I had applied for this debate, I was alarmed to read a front-page article in the Yorkshire Post on 8th November, headlined,
	"Britain 'to pull plug on coal industry'".
	I have no way of knowing how factual was that report, but it certainly set the alarm bells going in my mind.
	Today I feel that I am just going over the same ground as I have done for many, many years. My mind goes back to the Energy Select Committee in another place, which in 1991 took evidence and produced a report on clean coal technology. I do not have time to detail the recommendations of that report, but regrettably, like many Select Committee reports, it was pigeonholed and, I suppose, is now covered with dust.
	The West's dependence on Middle Eastern oil is being eclipsed by growing dependence on gas from non-OECD countries. The security implications are massive and predictable. Natural gas is a premium fuel that can be used very efficiently in household applications, in commercial plants which generally combine heat and power and in vehicles to reduce traffic pollution. Yet the UK has depleted its own reserves on a brief foray into power generation. In 1990, the remaining lifetime of total UK gas reserves stood at 36 years. By 2000, this had fallen to 14 years with just six years of proven reserves. The UK will soon become a net importer of gas and by 2020 will import between 50 and 90 per cent of its requirements.
	Coal offers long-term security and a diversity of supply at an affordable cost. The UK has at least 50 years of reserves and internationally traded coal is available from politically stable countries around the world. I believe there is a logical choice for the UK: we can become dependent on gas from Russia and the Middle East; we can turn back to nuclear; or we can embrace clean coal. I suggest that the latter is the sensible thing to do. I could turn my Question on its head and ask what will be the implications for our nation if Her Majesty's Government fail to support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant.
	Looking ahead to 2020, I suggest that there will be three such implications: first, an acknowledged overdependence on imported natural gas from regions that are less than politically stable; secondly, an inability to reduce our pollutant emissions to the targets agreed in international protocols, and certainly no possibility of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the levels demanded by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution; and, thirdly, high energy prices slowing economic growth and leaving too many people suffering from continued fuel poverty.
	I address those issues in turn. The oil companies tell us they can supply the UK's gas needs from Norway, Russia and more distant regions such as North Africa and the Middle East. I understand that it would cost 35 billion dollars to build the Yamal pipeline from Siberia, and that the UK would be at the end of it. One can only guess at the future price of that gas and how often the supply would be interrupted by the action of producer cartels, disgruntled transit countries or, God forbid, terrorists. It will not be cheap and it will not be secure. Gazprom in Russia and the Iranian National Oil Company control half of the world's gas reserves. Should we become dependent on those powerful companies?
	As regards emissions, the Government bask in the glory of past energy policies that leave us able to meet our immediate targets more easily than other countries. However, coal-miners suffered from those policies. I believe that it will be the public at large who will suffer next if the UK becomes dependent on foreign gas in the same manner that the USA is now dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
	The Prime Minister spoke on climate change at the Labour Party Conference in 1997. He presented a vision of the UK shining out as a beacon to the world. With clean coal technologies we have the opportunity to be that guiding light. The technologies exist to build coal-fired power stations with near-zero emissions. That includes elimination of carbon dioxide. We are not looking at futuristic technologies. Carbon dioxide can be captured from gasified coal prior to sending hydrogen gas to a gas turbine or fuel cell for power generation. In the UK we have an economic use of carbon dioxide—to enhance the recovery of North Sea oil. Two million tonnes per annum will be needed shortly to extend the life of the massive Forties field. All the components are in place to establish a demonstration project that would indeed be a beacon showing the world how coal can be used to provide energy security and affordability with minimal environmental impact.
	Affordability should not be ignored. It is all very well liberalising energy markets and claiming that that is good for consumers because prices fall. That is the case in the short term, but what of the longer term? Free markets do not properly value energy security until it is too late. In California, a mixture of poor regulation and environmental Nimbyism led to a short-term investment climate that favoured natural gas, but consumers could not afford that so it ended with power cuts .
	The UK Government cannot ignore their responsibility under the Utilities Act,
	"to protect the interests of consumers"
	and
	"to secure a diverse and viable long-term energy supply".
	We must press ahead with clean coal projects that lead to near-zero emission power stations. The Government have it within their power to encourage such development with financial incentives. I believe that now is the time to exercise that power.
	I understand that the steering committee overseeing the DTI's cleaner coal technology review met yesterday for the last time. Conclusions from the review point towards a longer term need for clean coal and power stations with carbon capture. The possibilities of recovering oil from the North Sea, using that carbon dioxide, feature strongly. That is good news. However, we must not ignore the energy security value of coal. In the short to medium term that means encouraging the commercial deployment of clean coal technologies. With a clean coal obligation on suppliers, the UK could continue to benefit from affordable electricity while meeting our environmental objectives. I suggest that after many years of pressure on various administrations the Government now have no alternative but to act if they want to protect our energy needs for the future.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and to congratulate him on securing the debate which is both timely and relevant. As a number of us know well, my noble friend has deep knowledge of the coal industry, a long involvement in it and, as a political representative of a Yorkshire constituency, he has maintained that knowledge and used the experience he has amassed over the years. Like me, my noble friend will from time to time over recent decades have looked at the many forecasts of energy supply and needs that are regularly published. I believe that we are not alone in having recognised that usually they are entirely wrong, even in the short term. As for long-term estimates, they are frequently proved to be ridiculous.
	But whether or not the forecasts are accurate, I think we can all agree that we need energy, it has to be provided and we need to ensure that it is both produced and used cleanly. However, we must also recognise that, whatever is said in Westminster, the world will use vast quantities of coal as far ahead as one can see. Today, two-fifths of the world's electricity is provided from the combustion of coal. Two-fifths of the electricity in this country is also provided from coal. Unfortunately, it is often burnt crudely and the atmosphere suffers. Therefore, in my view, it is beyond all doubt that both here and abroad we should be moving rapidly into clean coal combustion, as that can achieve a great deal. It would be useful if we recognised that the move to clean coal combustion was essential and that in this country it would provide substantially for the engineering industry, which can make use of such a move.
	I am reminded of Mr Ian McGregor—later, Sir Ian McGregor; I believe that he was rewarded for his service, limited in scope and vision, to the industry. I and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, attended an enormous exhibition held at the National Exhibition Centre where the British mining engineering industry demonstrated the machinery and inventions which its engineering and technological skills had produced.
	I attended a lunch which was to be addressed by Mr McGregor. There, to the slavish adulation of those who wished to maintain his favour, he pronounced the theory that there should be no coal reserves unless it could be proved that, today, they could be mined profitably. That was the most myopic and irresponsible statement that I have ever heard from a leader of an industry. Even if we were to say that we would mine coal reserves today, there would be a lead time of up to 10 years before coal was produced. Not even Mr McGregor could decide what the price of coal would be in five or 10 years' time.
	At that time, I was chairman of my party's energy committee, and we took a deep interest in this matter. I remember going to Grimethorpe to look at fluidised bed combustion. That project was supported by British Coal and internationally, but it stopped. I went to Fife to see British Gas's research into gasification. I found it most interesting because the day that I visited they were examining samples of coal from collieries in my own constituency. The results were of real interest. However, all those pits closed within a very short time, sometimes locking away substantial tonnages of coal. That coal is locked away forever unless, of course, we develop underground gasification. That is another area of research which should receive substantial support and, again, it offers substantial opportunities in world markets.
	However, the price of coal from abroad is highly volatile. Earlier this year, Australian coal prices rose by 23 per cent in one month. Not only is such coal highly volatile in price, but it is not necessarily secure in terms of guaranteed supply. We should be unwise if we were to become dependent on imported coal. We certainly could not replace coal with oil and gas. Even on Mr McGregor's estimates, we have four times as much coal as gas or oil in and around these islands. We certainly cannot rely on nuclear power. We could perhaps do so in our country because we are stable, but in a large number of countries in the world we could not advocate a development of reliance on nuclear power. If Mr bin Laden were able to escape the CIA, one wonders whether he would seek to become a member of a board in a privatised nuclear industry.
	We are talking about serious problems in a century which may come to be regarded historically as the century of terrorism and instability. There is stability in being reliant upon home-produced energy such as lies beneath our feet. However, I do not want that coal to be burned dirtily. I spent a great deal of my life in keen support of energy conservation and of conservation generally. I want to see clean coal technology.
	I turn to the latest information available from the British Coal Authority, which has, I hope, adequately briefed my noble friend. The authority tells me—I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm it because I would not claim in any sense to be a technologist—that a coal gasification plant which feeds a combined cycle gas turbine can produce the goods and can compete with renewables. The Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme of the International Energy Agency suggests that approximately £40 a tonne can be attained in going along the route of using equipment of the type that it envisages, whereas I believe that the Government gave a figure of £85 per tonne in relation to qualifying renewables.
	I am a little uneasy about renewables. Sometimes programmes that appear to be very attractive are not very popular. They may be fashionable but they can also be harmful. I do not want to see local communities having to accept large wind farms which would spoil the view and would certainly damage their quality of life. I do not want to see large wind farms on the migratory routes followed by birds. I do not believe that people would wish to see huge bird mortality as the large windmill sails turn round.
	We must go along the clean-coal route and we must go along a route which is sensible for our own nation's energy requirement. That is why I believe that we must ask the Government to do four things. First, they must urgently pursue the provision of a demonstration plant of clean-coal technology. In order to facilitate that development, they must ensure that action is taken very soon so that, for example, planning consents are obtained.
	Secondly, we need to ensure that the Government, both in this country and in the review in Europe of energy requirements up to the year 2050, take more urgently into account the need not only to sustain the UK and European coal industries but the clean burning of that coal.
	Thirdly, I believe that the Government need to understand that the economic opportunities are substantial. Therefore, in relation to the British mining engineering industry they should seek to ensure that adequate research takes place in engineering, technology and clean coal combustion. They should also ensure that the tremendous improvement in productivity in the British mining industry, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, began years before Mr McGregor's time and has continued in an almost unimaginably powerful way in recent years, is maintained.
	I come to my fourth and final point. In considering the matter of clean fuel, we should look to an early advance in the utilisation of coalfield methane. When one takes into account that it could very quickly provide one gigawatt a year of electricity at virtually no cost, prudence suggests that there is advantage in that field just as there would be wisdom and advantage in the pursuit of clean-coal technology.

Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lofthouse on initiating this debate. It is a subject that he has followed for many years and it is still worth listening to him on this matter.
	The question before us is: do the Government support the case for a cleaner coal demonstration plant? In 1968 I was Minister of Power, during the course of which I began to raise moneys for a research and development project to, it was hoped, develop a cleaner technology coal-burning plant. My ministry was strapped for cash. Therefore, I approached the Americans and, between us, we helped to finance research in Leatherhead to develop a fluidised bed concept—a cheaper, more efficient, cleaner coal-burning plant. The research proved sufficiently encouraging to sanction in 1975 an experiment at Grimethorpe Colliery near Barnsley to test its commercial and economic viability.
	Foreign interests became involved—Americans and Swedes—and primarily a German and British consortium was involved. Work was carried out until 1985. Unfortunately, the consortium broke up and then the Central Electricity Generating Board and the British Coal Corporation carried out more test work. However, soon afterwards, the project closed down. We were in those days, in research and plant test development, ahead of the world.
	Much of the interest in this work was taken up by ABB Carbon in Sweden. Since then, it has achieved a significant degree of development, and it has been applied to a number of demonstration and commercial power plants. This history has been a tale of failure to exploit an early UK technological lead due to official indecision and a reluctance in industry at that time to commit funds for investment. Therefore, today the market for pressurised fluidised bed combustion plant and related equipment is led by ABB Carbon.
	A 1991 report, Clean Coal Technology and the Coal Market, by the House of Commons Select Committee on Energy highlighted the wrangling between British Coal, the Department of Energy and industry partners. The problem was still going on. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse was a member of that committee. On cleaner coal technology, the committee stated,
	"that a prerequisite for a satisfactory UK clean coal policy will be significant assistance towards demonstration plants"—
	by that is meant significant financial assistance. I doubt whether the £4.3 million allocated to clean coal technology would satisfy that prerequisite.
	What of the situation now? The DTI's recent paper, The UK Cleaner Coal Technology Programme, states that the policy is: to encourage cleaner coal technologies; to protect the global environment through the Kyoto Protocol; to respond to the Foresight Initiative, which is bringing together business, the science base and government, and to the emerging opportunities in markets and technologies; and to exploit the market potential.
	That is where we are now; we have the Foresight Initiative and we are setting up panels and study groups and exploring opportunities. I ask the Minister whether we can catch up. We are facing considerable competition in this field. Can we even meet our Kyoto targets? Are the vast markets of China, India and North America being researched and tapped? Indeed, what have we to show in terms of practical technological development?
	Words from the conclusion of the DTI's policy paper are not very encouraging. It states:
	"Government support for demonstration is not"—
	I emphasise that word—
	"perceived to constitute value for money in a country with surplus coalfired capacity that is moderately efficient. However, the Foresight Taskforce has identified a case for demonstration after about 2005".
	To the coal-mining industry, power plant manufacturers and all who are involved in research and development in this field, that is not very much encouragement.
	I conclude by quoting from the House of Commons Energy Select Committee report of July 1991. That report, Clean Coal Technology and the Coal Market, states:
	"Without Government assistance no demonstration plants will be built. Without demonstration plants, the United Kingdom's clean coal projects cannot proceed towards commercial implementation. Without commercial implementation, the United Kingdom's research and development in this field will have been largely futile".
	That was said in 1991. I ask the Minister: how far have we advanced in the past 10 years?

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am delighted to speak after three noble Lords who have played such an eminent part in the coal industry's long, illustrious and difficult history. I have to declare an interest. I have been actively involved in the energy sector since 1947 and have recently started a new company—one is never too old to start a new company—called Micropower, which promotes the small-scale generation of electricity. That is of some relevance to this debate.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, pointed out in his emphatic and positive speech, cleaner coal technology has to be seen in a wider context. That wider context is currently being considered in the PIU energy review—it is that we as a country will shortly no longer benefit from the abundance of the North Sea. The noble Lord pointed out that the PIU estimated that if present trends continue, by 2020 we could be importing as much as 90 per cent of our increasing demand for gas. There will also continue to be a substantial—and increasing—importation of oil. In that circumstance we should think again about how we should in future resource ourselves in terms of energy. I hope that the PIU study will reflect that. That consideration has been dramatically heightened by the unfortunate events of 11th September.
	The question of the role that coal can play in all of that has been much debated. The trend in the usage of coal has massively diminished. In my time in the coal industry, we were supplying up to 80 per cent of the coal used in power stations. The figure is now between 30 and 40 per cent. The DTI estimates that by 2010 the figure could fall to 15 per cent or lower, and could gradually fade out entirely.
	In the new situation it must be asked whether that is sensible. However, there is another aspect to the matter; that is, technology. The way in which coal is currently used in power stations is based on pulverised fuel. That technology was developed some 40 or 50 years ago, and has not changed much since then. It is about time that we introduced a new technology for the use of coal in power stations. That technology is at hand through the cleaner coal processes and CO2 recovery. Those processes are now widely adopted—no fewer than 74 projects use CO2 recovery in the United States—and the resultant product that is combusted can be virtually free of CO2. That would put coal on the same basis as renewable energy. We would have in coal a new source of renewable energy and it would be available in unlimited quantities. Considerable skills are required to produce it but, fortunately, we still have them. As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, pointed out, we should add to that the possibility of using recovered CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. The degree of enhancement can be as much as 10 or 15 per cent.
	What an extraordinary combination of circumstances we now face. We are becoming short of the self-sufficiency from which we have benefited in the North Sea and we will have to depend increasingly on importing gas and oil. However, we now have an opportunity of looking once again at coal, which can provide us with a source of energy that is virtually free of CO2 and that CO2 could be used to enhance our rapidly diminishing oil resources.
	That is not a pipedream. I turn to the report of the International Energy Agency. There are many enhanced oil recovery plants in operation, and the report mentions one; that is the Weyburn project in Canada. The report states:
	"CO2 captured in a large coal gasification project in North Dakota, USA is to be transported 200 miles by pipeline and injected into the Weyburn field in Saskatchewan. Initially 5,000 tonnes per day of CO2 will be injected".
	If a project of that sort, transporting CO2 by pipeline for such distances, can be undertaken, in our situation, where the distances are much less, where the need for enhanced oil recovery is much greater and where the need to find another source of energy that we can control is also greater, surely we should seize that opportunity.
	Noble Lords have mentioned the long delay in getting ahead with cleaner coal technology plants. There has been a very long delay. I was much involved in the Grimthorpe project to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred and I much regretted its closure. But now we must come to terms with the situation. I found the DTI consultative document on clean coal technology plants to be extremely good. I believe that it fairly states the position.
	On 22nd October I attended a workshop that the department organised which looked at the matter closely. In my opinion, what came out of that workshop was that we should proceed with a demonstration plant of sufficient size—there is a project at Kellingley, for example, that could meet that requirement—to utilise the most advanced form of clean coal technology associated with CO2 recovery. That cannot be put in hand without some support. There was much debate about the form of support. The unanimous conclusion was that a direct injection of government funds into a particular technology was not desirable—it should be left to the market to decide—but that some framework of support was required.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, mentioned, a clean coal obligation on similar terms to the renewables obligation would appear to be the most desirable way. That would put no costs onto the Exchequer; it would be borne initially by consumers who ultimately would benefit by the increased security that would arise from such processes.
	I conclude by saying to the Minister, whom I know is sympathetic to these matters, that now is the time for decision. We have spent too long waiting. We now have a great opportunity, particularly in the light of the greater risks that we run in our energy supply in the future, to move ahead with a new technology that will bring an old form of energy back in a new form.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, for having introduced this important and particularly timely debate and to say how much I have enjoyed listening to all the contributions from noble Lords who have so much experience in this area.
	The debate is timely because recent events have again focused minds on the need for what is loosely called the West, and particularly the USA, drastically to reduce its dependence on oil from the Middle East. But the phrase "cleaner coal" is a contradiction in terms. It admits that coal by its very nature and composition is not clean. Coal is largely made from carbon, with the addition of oxygen and hydrogen. When it burns the carbon combines with its own oxygen and oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide—the infamous greenhouse gas—which inexorably produces an ecological disaster that will affect the entire world. It also produces in large quantities the poisonous oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, to which I shall refer again in a moment.
	Burning coal produces another phenomenon of which we have heard little lately as global warming, rising seas and encroaching deserts have impinged themselves on the public conscientiousness. I refer, of course, to acid rain, which was, and presumably still is, decimating large areas of forest and grassland.
	The dangers of burning coal are not well publicised or generally known. As long ago as 1975 a US Senate Committee on air quality reported that every coal-burning plant produces 25 deaths and 60,000 cases of respiratory disease as a result of the pollutants that it emits, and that is apart from the property damage those pollutants cause. That is why this debate about a cleaner coal demonstration plant is so very important and timely.
	Coal, which is stable and the safest fossil fuel to transport and store, is in abundant supply. Unfortunately, I fear that even if the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, induces the Government to give more support to research into the development and use of cleaner coal, it may not do our domestic coal-mining industry much good. Increased coal consumption is likely to be supplied from countries where the extraction and export of coal, even allowing for transport costs, is cheaper than in the United Kingdom.
	Three main types of clean coal technologies are used to produce material for the generation of electricity. I want to look at the Government's record in this area. In July 1998 the honourable Member for Wansbeck secured a debate in the other place on clean coal technology. In response the Minister for Science Energy and Industry said,
	"I assure my hon. Friend that the Government support the development of clean-coal technology".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1081.]
	That was in 1998. In 1999 Britain's leading share in this technology in the world market fell from 12.5 per cent to 11 per cent. In the same debate in the other place, the Minister said:
	"Clean coal technologies have an important part to play"—
	in reducing the emission of greenhouse gases—
	"We are keen to support cleaner coal technologies".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1081.]
	Two-and-a-half years passed by and in a debate in the other place on 22nd November 2000, almost a year to the day before today's debate, the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe said:
	"Several hon. Members have raised the issue of cleaner-coal technology . . . We are conducting an analysis and will do so in even more detail as we proceed with examining the technology". [Official Report, Commons, 22/11/00; col. 405.]
	Have any of your Lordships ever come across a more meaningless piece of waffle? What does it mean? In that same debate, my honourable friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton reminded the Minister that in 1996, when Labour was in opposition, they promised that Labour would seriously consider offering clean coal technology as part of the existing £400 million subsidy for renewable energy.
	The extent of the Government's so-called serious consideration when they came to power was that they said that they would contribute to a £60 million portfolio of research and development projects over the next few years. I believe that that was a typical piece of creative bookkeeping, double counting and double speak. It is not £60 million from the Governments coffers. I quote from the DTI energy paper 67 which says that it is merely a contribution,
	"forecast to generate projects worth £60 million".
	The £60 million is revealed to be merely £12 million over three years. In other words, the contribution from the £400 million fund promised in 1996 when the Government were in opposition, boiled down first to £60 million and then down to £4 million a year for three years.
	Between 1991 and 1997, the last Conservative government funded clean coal research to an extent that never fell below £6.8 million per annum and an average rate of £8.15 million. Between 1997 and 2001 the Government's expenditure was a maximum of £4.3 million and an average of a £3.2 million. As can be seen, the Government did not even keep their promise of £4 million a year. What the Minister told the other place was that,
	"our ability to pay aid is constrained by fairly concrete rules and that means cleaner coal technology is not included. However, my Department funds research into cleaner coal technology and is anxious to see the maximum uptake of schemes that promote it".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/00; Col. 385.]
	Those are fine words. That means, translating the gobbledegook, that the Treasury will not part with the money in the form of various forms of tax on fuel it claws from the pockets of motorists, householders and industry—tax that is being increased by the climate change levy, which the Government are clearly not going to use to reduce the output of noxious emissions by Britain and to help us meet our commitments under the Kyoto agreement.
	I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate we shall hear less about the penny-pinching of the Treasury and more about tangible assistance to long-term investment in the environment, in supporting our shrinking coal mining industry and in making us less vulnerable to economic pressure, possibly in furtherance of the political agendas of oil producing states. Above all, I hope that we shall hear more about government support for an industry which once was a world leader, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, remarked, in exporting technology, but which, as so frequently happens, is slipping down the world ratings due to apathy—I suppose that that is the best word to use.
	I was heartened by the confidence that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, felt after attending the recent workshop. I wish that I had also had the opportunity to attend.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for the debate given by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse. The noble Lord is a great expert in this area, as indeed were all the other speakers today. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will not mind if I say that the only two people who are not world-class experts in this area are the two Front-Bench spokesmen. We have therefore had a very interesting discussion of this key issue.
	It is a timely issue, as the Government are now nearing the completion of their review of the case for supporting cleaner coal technology demonstration plant. This review has been running in parallel with the Performance and Innovation Unit's review of wider energy policy. The PIU is due to report to the Prime Minister in December. The two review teams have been keeping in close touch throughout this process. I am sure that everyone appreciates that I cannot, therefore, in the light of these two reviews give definite answers today. I shall try to indicate the key issues and questions that need to be addressed.
	It is for the PIU review to examine the extent to which the Government should be concerned about the likely future energy mix in electricity generation. We all recognise, and the matter has been raised a number of times today, that the security of energy supplies is a key objective of our energy policy and that that must be kept to the forefront. Whether or not there is a case for government to intervene to influence the components of the energy mix depends on the way the electricity generation market develops and how it meets the multiple objectives of cost, security and environment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lofthouse that affordability is not the only criteria, although we should never underestimate that when we are talking about the very important issue of fuel poverty.
	We shall wait to see what the PIU concludes on this question. I have no doubt that it will listen carefully to the arguments that have been advanced here today. I shall ensure that this debate is brought to its attention, in particular, the question of how content we are to depend on a large amount of our energy supplies coming from natural gas from abroad.
	Our current projections envisage coal playing a part in electricity generation for many years to come, even without any specific intervention to rebalance the energy mix. Coal has many merits. It is plentiful and cheap. We have large indigenous reserves, although costs limit the extent to which those can be exploited. It is easy to transport and to store. Coal-fired power plant is a highly mature technology. Although much is already tens of years old, it can relatively easily and cheaply be refurbished, allowing the life of coal-fired plant to be extended to all intents and purposes indefinitely. I say to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse that whatever the Yorkshire Post may say, there is no question of the Government pulling the plug on the coal industry.
	Against this, however, new coal plant is relatively expensive to build and operate compared to gas, even without cleaner coal technologies. That is why no new coal plant has been commissioned for many years and why it is unlikely that generators will commit to such new build in the foreseeable future while current price differentials hold. But even more importantly, coal has a big disadvantage in that it is not a clean fuel when it is used in conventional power generation. It emits a number of gases which, if not controlled, damage the environment. The Government are therefore committed to reducing or eliminating these emissions.
	Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Government are committed to reducing greenhouse gas levels by 2008 to 2010 to 12.5 per cent below the levels in 1990. While we are broadly on course to meet these targets, a major reason for this is the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation over the past few years. CO2 emissions from gas plant are about half of those of conventional coal-fired generation.
	It is clear from the points made by noble Lords today that there is a broad acceptance that if coal is to continue to play a significant role in the future, it will need to be used much more cleanly than now in terms both of acid emissions and of CO2. If there is to be a new coal build, it will need to involve cleaner coal technologies. If the existing coal-fired power stations in this country are to continue to play a significant part in the longer-term energy mix, they will need to adopt cleaner coal technologies over time.
	There are already a number of measures in place to limit emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from coal-fired generation, for example, through the implementation of the Large Combustion Plant Directive. The environmental challenges of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are now largely manageable, albeit at cost, with technologies such as flu-gas desulphurisation to sulphur dioxide and selective catalytic reductions for nitrogen oxides. Flu-gas desulphurisation is already fitted or being fitted to some coal-fired stations here. But it is carbon dioxide that presents the particular challenge to coal.
	In this respect there are two main technologies that can improve the efficiency and hence the carbon effectiveness of coal use. One strand involves supercritical and ultra-supercritical pulverised fuel boiler technologies. These technologies can offer 15 to 20 per cent CO2 savings in terms of the emissions per kilowatt hour of generation. They can also, at least in part, be retrofitted to existing plant.
	The second strand depends on the gasification of coal and the processing of the consequent synthetic gas in an integrated coal gasification combined cycle or IGCC. This offers similar CO2 efficiency gains. It also offers the potential to produce high-quality streams of hydrogen which may be valuable for future use in fuel cells if and when these start to mature as a technology.
	A third group of technologies, to which I shall turn later, involves the capture and storage of CO2 produced from coal plant. That can be applied to either of the main technologies. My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath mentioned the potential of underground coal gasification as a possible future technology. That remains an area of interest, but it is widely recognised to be still at the research and development end of the scale rather than something yet ready for development.
	In looking at the case for a cleaner coal technology demonstration plant, the department's review team has consulted widely with people in an variety of industries with a interest in using coal more cleanly. The team has established a steering group made up of experts who have met regularly over the past three months. In addition to this, the team has held a technical workshop, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra mentioned and indeed was an active participant in. The team has therefore ensured that it has taken evidence from a wide variety of interests.
	What is clear from the review is that the two main cleaner coal technologies—supercritical and gasification technologies—are already largely demonstrated in projects overseas, and much is already known about what works and what does not work in different practical applications. That suggests that there is unlikely to be a strong case for the Government to invest further to demonstrate these concepts. We also need to ask what role there is for government to support the construction of a new demonstration plant if it is unlikely, all other things being equal, that the generators would invest in new coal-powered methods in the medium term. It would seriously undermine the value to be gained from such a demonstrator.
	The review team will be considering those issues in more detail as it brings its work to a conclusion in the coming weeks. That relates of course to the PIU report on the likelihood of coal fired generators in the future.
	There is another strand to the issue. There are some technologies, largely in relation to supercritical pulverised fuel where there may be value in demonstrating components that can be relocated to existing plant rather than whole new plant. That suggests that there may be a case for the Government to look again at the scale of their research and development programmes to see whether a relatively modest increase in resources might produce real benefits. There are some UK technologies which, with some help or demonstration through to existing UK kit, may prove themselves to be of particular value in promoting their use in the UK and in supporting export sales to China and India, for example.
	I was recently in China and one of the main issues that the Chinese Minister of Science wanted to discuss was how we could co-operate—indeed, we are co-operating—on clean coal technology and how to push that agenda further and faster forward.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, raised the question of economic opportunities. From the preliminary trip that I made, I believe that there are possibly substantial opportunities, but obviously that requires to be examined in more detail. If there is a lack of opportunity to demonstrate those components, that stands in the way of potential exports. It should then be a case for government help, which is a matter that the review team will be considering further.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the question of carbon capture and storage. I wish to say something about that technology, which is of great interest. Given that CO2 is the most significant challenge facing coal use in the future, the review team also looked at the possibility of securing even more significant CO2 savings for carbon capture and storage. It is, in effect, a potential third technology that could be applied to either supercritical or IGCC plant. It would increase the carbon saving from 15 to 20 per cent to as much as 80 per cent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that he thought that all the CO2 could be recovered. A substantial amount but not all of it can be recovered.
	Capturing the CO2 and locking it away underground in depleted oil reserves, for example, offers potentially the prospect of a material saving in the carbon impact of coal. It could also have added advantages in the medium term in that the CO2 could be used to help in the recovery of oil in our declining North Sea oilfields. Evidence to date indicates that CO2 can be used to flush out some of the oil that it would otherwise not be possible to extract. The oil companies have an interest and in the longer term we might be able to use the depleted North Sea reserves to lock away the CO2. A great deal of work still needs to be done in this area.
	The team will also look at measures that might be taken to create an incentive to make carbon savings from coal use. The noble Lords, Lord Lofthouse and Lord Ezra, raised the question of a cleaner coal or sustainable energy obligation, which is a possibility. But we need to think carefully about the right mechanisms to create incentives in industry.
	Your Lordships will understand that I cannot give precise answers to a number of questions until we have the outcome of the PIU's review of energy policy and my department's review of the case for supporting cleaner coal technology demonstration plant. These matters should be much clearer early next year when both teams have published their reports. I know that both teams will reflect carefully on the many points that have been made by noble Lords in this interesting and informative debate tonight. I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return in due course.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. I suggest that the House reconvenes at 9 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.56 to 9 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 1).

Lord Howell of Guildford: We come to Amendment No. 35 which is concerned with Declaration 1 adopted by the conference. While these declarations are part of the command paper and are included in the treaty document they are not part of the treaty itself. This amendment is concerned with the first declaration which focuses on European security and defence policy. It states that,
	"the objective for the European Union is for that policy to become operational quickly. A decision to that end will be taken by the European Council as soon as possible in 2001 and no later than at its meeting in Laeken"—
	which is a few weeks ahead but still in 2001—
	" . . . on the basis of the existing provisions of the Treaty on European Union. Consequently, the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice does not constitute a precondition".
	Nevertheless, the declaration is included in the command paper, and I hope the Committee accepts that the issues it raises are relevant to the Bill and the treaty.
	The word that catches the eye in the declaration is "quickly". The Belgian Government and many others are particularly anxious that these matters should be taken forward rapidly. Since the horrors of 11th September a great deal has been said about the need for European defence co-operation to be strengthened. That is something that we have never opposed; indeed, we have actively supported it. To me and many of my noble friends, it has long appeared vital that a much stronger contribution by the European powers to the overall defence effort of Europe within NATO is essential and that the continuing lack of compatibility and interoperability of defence capabilities in Europe is highly undesirable.
	Perhaps the point at which differences between my noble friends and the government Benches arise is the precise nature of the reaction to that challenge and how it should be met. One proposition that is strongly aired with renewed vigour by Mr Geoff Hoon, Secretary of State for Defence, is that the rapid reaction force project should be pushed forward more rapidly and the whole idea given a high-level flavour. I remain confused—perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to clarify the position—as to the aim of the rapid reaction force. Is it to be an expeditionary force that can operate out of area, as the Secretary of State for Defence appeared to hint at this morning and as many others have indicated, or is it intended for more low level humanitarian peacekeeping tasks? Without intending to be derogatory, is it to be a glorified travelling policing operation? One minute one sees talk, as in the Financial Times this morning, about the need for precision guided missiles; the next minute there is talk about its capacity for law enforcement, social care, rehabilitation and so on. For those outside the process it is very hard to focus on precisely what is planned.
	I have no difficulty with the objective of a stronger European end of NATO. It is only when one comes to the proposition of autonomy that all the difficulties begin. I sometimes wonder whether they are all worthwhile. I understand that originally it was to please the French at St Malo, but has it carried forward the tasks any more rapidly? Certainly, the general view is that matters are proceeding rather too slowly. Klaus Bu hler of the Bundestag is quoted in this morning papers as saying,
	"We still have not seen any progress on precision guided missiles, anti-air defence or forces protection".
	I am not even clear about the numbers. I understood that 60,000 troops were to be put in the front line, but this morning it is said that so far 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships have been pledged by members states. Presumably, that means that those facilities have been earmarked, double-hatted or whatever is the technical phrase.
	Perhaps the real signal we seek that something is happening and this is not just talk, or to do with other objectives—for example, a European identity—is extra spending. Is there to be a radically increased defence spending programme throughout the EU membership which I understand Her Majesty's Government believe is necessary? The figure of an additional 25 billion dollars over 10 years has been mentioned, but at present one sees very little sign of it. Here we have a good defence programme, although some say that it should be stronger. We are ahead of the game as compared with the rest of the European Union where defence budgets have been progressively cut. The Committee would be greatly helped if the noble Baroness could reassure it, particularly in view of reported statements by the Secretary of State for Defence as to the precise aims and goals of the new force. Are they still Petersberg tasks, or something more? Perhaps the noble Baroness will reassure us about whether the defence spending necessary to make it work will occur.
	We believe that a force of some kind within the NATO framework is vital for the security of an enlarged European Union. However, we question whether the force which the declaration appears to want to become operational quickly will, as a political project, avoid duplication, division and debate and instead deliver the defence and security that Europe needs. I beg to move.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to know one thing about the European defence arrangements. There must be worry in the minds of some, particularly in the Armed Forces, about where the additional troops will come from. From the figures I have seen, our troops are already fully committed in Germany, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Northern Ireland and Cyprus. That adds up to the 65,000 operational troops available. We shall now apparently send a force of at least 6,000—it may be 12,000; we do not know—to Afghanistan. We do not know how long they are likely to be there. It is essential to know where the troops are coming from and that when they are available they will be properly equipped and financed. As I stated in another debate, that has not been the case for quite a long time.
	Those are the questions I wish to ask about the new defence arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist me.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Perhaps I may comment on the context of the declaration. We know that there is some pressure from the Belgian presidency to make a declaration at the Laeken European Council that the rapid reaction force will have become operational. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist any such declaration when it comes to the European Council unless there is clear evidence of substantial pledges of further assistance from other governments including in particular the Belgian Government who have taken a large number of defence cuts.
	Perhaps I may be a little mischievous. When we first debated the clause in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to plans to develop a European army, with its own marching song. What progress has been made on the marching song? What language will it be in? What will the tune be?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord will be sadly disappointed. I cannot give him any further information on the marching song. It is an interesting point. If further information is available, I assure the noble Lord that it will be his very shortly.
	I am well aware that the matters relating to the European rapid reaction force have been the subject of considerable debate for quite some time. As a Minister in the Ministry of Defence and now in the Foreign Office, I have addressed them on a number of occasions. However, let us deal with their place in this discussion. The Nice conclusions make it clear that the goal for the EU is to have a rapid reaction force operational as soon as possible—that is, one which can be called upon. I stress that it is not a standing rapid reaction force. It is not a Euro-army or any of the other wrong classifications given by those who have sought to give such a complexion to what we have tried to draw up in regard to what is now necessary in Europe in terms of some sort of military capability when NATO does not wish to be engaged.
	To that end, both the Swedish and the Belgian presidencies have made progress on two fronts. The first is the establishment and validation of the permanent structures and crisis management procedures. The second front is the pursuit of discussions with NATO with a view to establishing arrangements between the European Union and NATO, which is obviously an important point of liaison.
	The Political and Security Committee and the EU Military Committee were established under the Swedish presidency. The process of ensuring that they function well and of testing EU crisis management procedures has continued under the Belgian presidency during the second half of this year. The EU and NATO have reached agreement on elements of their permanent relationship and working to agree what is termed as "detailed Berlin-plus arrangements" for EU access to NATO assets. Those EU/NATO agreements will also need to be validated and exercised. Thus these are matters which are being discussed regularly with NATO colleagues. We have here a dual effort seeking to ensure that no duplication of effort takes place between the two.
	As the noble Lord indicated, of course we share the objective of making the EU operational for military crisis management as soon as possible. However, the "possible" is far more important than the "soon". Perhaps I may put it in this way: the issue is far too important to be rushed or tied to an artificial deadline. The goal is for the EU to be capable by 2003 of undertaking military operations across the spectrum of the Petersberg tasks. That requires efficient EU structures, effective relations with NATO—on which a great deal of time has been spent—and improved capabilities. Noble Lords will know that the capabilities conference is under way. We are pursuing those three aspects, all of which are crucial.
	At Nice it was also agreed in a non-legally binding declaration that the ESDP would become operational quickly and that the decision would be taken by the Laeken Council. We share the objective of making the EU operational for crisis management as soon as possible but, as I have said, we have to get this right. It must form the underlying bedrock of our efforts. We cannot rush towards the deadline of Laeken and we cannot commit to a decision which remains to be reached at that conference. It must be the right decision and I personally believe that it will be taken at Laeken, but of course it is for the members to decide.
	The noble Lord has pointed out that it is vital for a much stronger contribution to be made to the overall NATO capability. He is entirely right to say that both interoperability and capability are important. We believe that the rapid reaction force will work better for NATO and better for fulfilling those Petersberg tasks in which NATO does not wish to become involved. The noble Lord asked what exactly are those tasks. They are expeditionary forces, out-of-area forces, low-level humanitarian forces and peace-keeping forces; namely, they provide humanitarian operations. I have cited examples such as assisting flood victims, as we were able to undertake some 18 months ago in Africa.
	Other crises may arise which would be difficult to define at the moment, but they would be ones in which NATO would not wish to become involved and where the territorial integrity of the NATO signatories would not be at stake, or peace-keeping or enforcement. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that we have long lived with the definition of Petersberg tasks in relation to the WEU. Indeed, it is those Petersberg tasks that we still refer to in relation to the rapid reaction force. We have been over this ground many times. I am sure that the noble Lord will be tempted to quote many commentators from Europe and elsewhere who have cast doubts and perhaps have pointed to certain more high-flown ambitions. However, I should say to the noble Lord that what really matters is what is said by those who are taking the real decisions as regards the aims of the force, as well as what is said by our major ally in NATO, the United States.
	The United States has been the principal player in NATO and NATO remains our cornerstone. I remind the noble Lord of what was said by President Bush when he and the Prime Minister met at Camp David:
	"We support the efforts of NATO's European members and other European nations to assume greater responsibility for crisis management in Europe by strengthening NATO's capabilities and developing the ability to manage efforts where NATO as a whole chooses not to be engaged".
	I could not put that more plainly than the President of the United States. He seems completely to have grasped the point and has put his confidence in what we are doing in Europe.
	The noble Lord asked about extra spending. The Government have put extra funding into our defence budget. We believe that that was right, given the commitments of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the noble Lord will acknowledge that the Government instituted the first increase in defence spending for some 10 years, as I recall. We have done that because it was necessary. It was not a direct response to the European rapid reaction capability. We are exhorting our European colleagues to look not necessarily and entirely at extra spending, although it would be very welcome if some of them did, but to look at spending where it is really needed. That is what the capability conference is about.
	The European initiative is about the European nations improving the practicalities and the real capabilities, with better armed forces capable of quicker reaction and more effective deployment. European defence will really make NATO stronger. I am constantly disappointed that the Benches opposite do not acknowledge that what we are doing here will make NATO stronger by improving the European capability. Of course, NATO will remain essential to our collective defence and our first choice in managing crises. It is only when NATO chooses not be engaged that the European arrangements kick in.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the question of additional troops. They are not additional troops, but a question of troops that can be made available. At its worst, over stretch was running at about 40 per cent of the deployment of our Armed Forces. That was reduced to under 30 per cent. I say to the noble Lord that we always have to prioritise when operating under a NATO umbrella and it is no different from having to do so when we operate under an EU umbrella.
	The noble Lord told us earlier this afternoon that the Prime Minister had done magnificently in holding his corner against too much centralisation and singularisation of foreign policy in Europe. I agree that the point that he made was about foreign policy. But I believe that the same can be said about what is happening on the military front. The fact is that we have kept an absolute veto for the United Kingdom on these issues.
	We turn now to the question of whether or not we are going to be rushed into any decisions. I assure the noble Lord that we are not. We would like to stick to the timetable and we believe that we shall be able to do so. But I assure the noble Lord that the Government's priority is to get this right.

Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Obviously, her assurances are reassuring and bring additional clarity to a situation which, after a few days, tends to become clouded again. I hope that this time the clouds stay away.
	I confess that I will still need constant reassurance, as will members of the public, and certainly your Lordships, about the humanitarian tasks. In the noble Baroness's phrase, the "what is it all about?" question will need constant clarification, and rightly so. These are military resources backed by taxpayers' money. People have a right to know what any new forces are for. If they are for flood relief and humanitarian tasks and matters yet difficult to define, one is left wondering how flood relief will be secured by 100,000 troops, 400 aircraft and 100 ships. That sounds more like the expeditionary force of the Greeks against Troy except, presumably, they would not have had aircraft. That is a very big operation, yet the noble Baroness is describing much lower profile operations. That is not quite what the Secretary of State is reported as saying this morning. I have not checked the original text, only the newspaper reports.
	All the time there is a desperate need to keep in focus and state with precision what this additional force is for and to ensure that it meets the criteria laid down by everybody, including the Prime Minister in some statements and President Bush, but not, from time to time, various other European statesmen, generals and so on, who clearly have something different in mind. So I am reassured.
	As regards the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, rightly raising his eyebrow at the thought of a marching song, I freely state that I took it from a pamphlet of a very reliable and learned columnist, Mr Irwin Steltzer. But perhaps feeling that it was not enough to rely on him I did check with the authorities connected with the European Commission. Rather like the noble Baroness, I received a kind of silence, followed by a feeling that they had no record of the idea of a marching song related to the rapid reaction force—which, after all, so far has not marched anywhere—but that it rang a faint bell in relation to the Euro Brigade. Further conversation—not of the totally thorough kind which the Committee deserves—indicated to me that the Euro Brigade did and does have a marching song. So it may be that I was confusing the Euro Brigade with the RRF, which, I recognise, are two very different organisations. I apologise if there was confusion as a result of my remarks.
	I have nothing more to add at this late stage. I am grateful for the further reassurances—although I should say, slightly gloomily, that I suspect that before we are through we may need still more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 35A:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 2).

Lord Kingsland: We turn now from the clarity of military operations to the fog of the law. The Tampere European Council in October 1999 agreed on the establishment of Eurojust. At Nice it was agreed that the Council "shall promote co-operation through Eurojust" in three main areas: to enable Eurojust to facilitate co-ordination between the prosecuting authorities of member states; to promote support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in serious cross-border crime, particularly organised crime; and to facilitate close co-operation between Eurojust and the European judicial network, especially to facilitate extradition requests.
	We on these Benches, of course, support improved co-ordination in these areas; but we oppose any move beyond that. I observe that, in the course of the proceedings of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny that led to its sixth report, the Government undertook not to accept any operational role for Eurojust in national criminal investigations or prosecutions. In this context, moreover, the report also expressed some anxiety about the content of certain draft documents. In particular, the report stated:
	"The requirement that a prosecuting authority in a Member State should be obliged to account to Eurojust for its reasons for not complying with a request to prosecute, or for not complying with a request to co-ordinate prosecutions with those of another Member State, suggests to us that Eurojust is intended to have some influence over prosecution discretions; otherwise there would seem to be little point in asking for the reasons to be stated".
	Our concern is that Eurojust may prove to be the first step towards a European Union public prosecutor. Unreassuringly, for example, Commissioner Victorino said:
	"A provisional judicial co-operation unit, which will serve as a kind of laboratory, enabling us to conceive and simultaneously test Eurojust, will take up its work soon. We may in the longer term also agree on the concept of centralised prosecution as a further logical step along the path of co-operation and co-ordination within the Union, at least for a number of sectors of particular European relevance".
	And the explanatory statement in the Gebhardt report, voted in the European Parliament last November, said:
	"Eurojust must . . . be so constituted that it can be regarded as a forerunner of a future European public prosecution service designed to strengthen the European Union's judicial dimension in relation to criminal law".
	We need to be sure that, by inserting treaty articles in this area, the EU is not paving the way for a journey beyond co-operation, to a new form of acquis communautaire. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: If one has a de facto federal public prosecutor, as foreshadowed by the commissioner quoted by the noble Lord, will that not lead inexorably to a federal bureau of investigation—even if under another name—whose agents have the power to go anywhere, with or without the knowledge and permission of the local police, and bear firearms if they require them? Further, persons caught by such agents, prosecuted and convicted could serve their sentences in a federal penitentiary.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Article 31(2) lays down means by which the council shall encourage co-operation through Eurojust. However, the declaration that is the subject of the amendment merely records that member states agreed some time ago the role of Eurojust and where and when the decision to establish it was taken.
	Speculation about what might happen is not as important as what the declaration says about Eurojust:
	"A unit composed of national prosecutors, magistrates or police officers of equivalent competence detached from each member state, having the task of facilitating proper co-ordination between national prosecuting authorities and of supporting criminal investigations in organised crime cases".
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reminded us that the decision to establish Eurojust was taken by the Tampere European Council in October 1999. The declaration makes clear that the intention was to improve co-operation between national prosecutors aiding national criminal investigations into serious organised crime. Eurojust is not a supranational European police force but an arrangement to cover intergovernmental co-operation for the good of our citizens across Europe.
	We are only too painfully aware that organised crime stopped long ago respecting any kind of national boundaries. The UK Government strongly support Eurojust and the benefits it will bring to tackling organised crime effectively. Improving judicial co-operation across the EU will also help to ensure that serious organised crime is properly investigated and prosecuted.
	I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that Eurojust will not mean—as he saw reported—interference by the European Union in national investigations and prosecutions. Neither will it mean an end to British legal tradition or be a body that investigates and prosecutes in its own right. Eurojust will not be a centralised European public prosecutor. It will be a means by which investigations will continue to be conducted by national authorities. Eurojust's role will be to aid cross-border investigations through co-operation between national authorities.
	Eurojust is a network designed to crack down on international organised crime, to help put an end to the misery caused by traffickers in drugs and human beings, and to bring money launderers to book—something that all members of the Committee should be able to support.

Lord Kingsland: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which I find greatly reassuring. Last night, we debated at some length the question of the European warrant. Those who attended that debate will recall that we are about to be faced with a new regime whereby an important part of the criminal law of our country will come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I am much relieved to hear that that will not be the case for Eurojust. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Noble Lords: Not-Content!

Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, I must put the Question, That this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion shall say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".

Noble Lords: Not-Content!

Lord Skelmersdale: I think that the "Not-Contents" have it. On Question, amendment negatived.

[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 22)"

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I tabled this amendment because I am a little concerned that there is a change to the holding and the venues of future European Councils. It seems that, from 2002, one European Council per presidency will be held in Brussels and one in member states holding the presidency; and that when the Union reaches 18 members, all Councils will be held in Brussels.
	I cannot understand the reason for this. It merely provides further evidence that the final purpose is to create a unitary state—a country called Europe. Although holding Council meetings in Brussels may be administratively expedient, the idea tends to undermine the concept of the European Union as an organisation of nation states, and gives further credence to supra-nationality by adding to the existing symbols of statehood that of a permanent capital city where the real power resides.
	Peripatetic presidencies at least maintain the illusion of nationhood. I should have thought that it would have some propaganda value for the Euro-spinmasters that at least some meetings are held in the member countries—for example, in this country, in London, Cardiff or Edinburgh, or perhaps even in Belfast. I cannot quite understand why it has been necessary to alter that arrangement. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I have a great deal of sympathy with a part of this amendment. The declaration is nonsensical. This was not done in order to build a centralised state; it was done as a particularly "dirty deal" between the French presidency and the Belgian Prime Minister at a late stage in the early morning declarations. I strongly suspect that the Belgians will come to regret this change when the cost of holding European Councils in Brussels gets through to them. We do not support the removal of the provision, but I regret to say that it is one of the least glorious aspects of the way in which treaties and their declarations are negotiated. I would much rather that it were not there.

Lord Blackwell: Whatever the intent behind the declaration, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that its effect would be in due course to establish a permanent centre of government for the European Union. If we are clear that it is a union of nation states and that the Council of Ministers is the primary council, which involves nations coming together to agree from time to time, an important part of that symbolism is that the nations are the hosts for those meetings and that all European Union member states have their turn at hosting them. The only symbolism and effect that can come out of having a permanent location is to strengthen the power of the central machinery. Regardless of whether the intent was to create a European government, it is de facto a move that would lead in that direction. For that reason, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in objecting to the declaration.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The European Council—the heads of state and government of the member states—now meets often. In recent years, there have typically been two or three European Council meetings per presidency. At least one formal meeting is always held at the end of each presidency, as will be the case when the Belgian presidency hosts the Laeken European Council next month.
	In recent years there has been a second formal European Council meeting in the first half of each year—for example, the meeting in Lisbon in spring 2000 to launch the new economic reform process. That was followed up by the European Council at Stockholm in March this year, under the Swedish presidency. There is also traditionally an informal European Council meeting every autumn which does not reach conclusions. Last month's meeting in Ghent is the most recent example.
	In addition, the European Council has met on other occasions when circumstances have warranted it—for example, the extraordinary meeting on 21st September which decided the European Union's response to the terrorist attacks in the United States of America. All, or most, of those meetings have been held in the country holding the presidency.
	However, as the European Council has grown in importance, it has brought with it increasing burdens on the host. Those burdens are not just financial and practical—although those aspects can be considerable. There are also very important security burdens. The scenes at the Gothenburg European Council in June, where the meeting was seriously disrupted by protesters, are still fresh in our minds.
	The measure is not merely window dressing, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, implied. The system genuinely needs reform. That is what we agreed at Nice. We decided on two points. First, from 2002, one European Council per presidency will be held in Brussels. That will still leave presidencies free to hold a second formal meeting and an informal European Council in their own country, should they wish to do so. Secondly, once the EU enlarges to 18 members, all European Council meetings will be held in Brussels. That applies to all formal meetings. The possibility of the presidency holding informal meetings in its own country will remain.
	That is a genuine and sensible reform. Once the European Council has its own permanent venue, organisation and security will become a matter of routine rather than a matter requiring months of planning and great expense by the presidency country. The Belgian authorities have long experience of handling international meetings, as all your Lordships will be well aware.
	That is particularly relevant following the events of 11th September. Security is a real issue now for such meetings. This is a sensible change, designed to deliver efficiency. The amendment would overturn all that. That is why, I am sorry to say, we have to reject it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Blackwell, for their support. I must confess that I was surprised to receive support from the Liberal Front Bench—we are making progress—but I was sorry not to have received support from the Labour Front Bench as well.
	I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I understand her reasons but I am not at all sure that what is proposed is wise. It is necessary: the Government have said so; the EU has said so; even the Commission has said so. We must inform people about what is happening in the European Union and what it is all about so that the EU will receive more support and be better loved.
	Frankly, the way to do that is not by centralisation but by decentralisation. Although the Minister may think that peripatetic meetings are unimportant, I assure her that they are not. I understood her to say that for various reasons it was better to hold them in one venue rather than in various capital cities throughout the EU. I am sorry if I misunderstood her.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not wish to trespass further on the Committee's time, but my point was that, although there are important practical and cost considerations, the Government believe the security question to be far more important. I hope that the noble Lord will take that on board.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I understand that. The Minister may like to know that I have been holding counter-conferences—counter-intergovernmental conferences and what have you—in various cities, so I have observed what happens.
	The Edinburgh Council was in fact a great carnival. There were flags and banquets everywhere. Edinburgh was delighted to host the European Council. I also went to Cardiff. Cardiff had never experienced anything like having all those great potentates in that great city. M Chirac told the United States that his objective was to ensure that the euro gained first place from the dollar. People thought that that was great.
	I also went to Nice. I must confess that I was a little worried because Nice was a city under siege. I have never seen so many soldiers with guns; and I have never seen such a remote and unprotected organisation.

Lord Tomlinson: They heard that you were there, then.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As a matter of fact, they did not. Unfortunately, they would not agree to see me or my delegation. I am sorry about that, but it did not happen.
	Although I appreciate the new security situation—although perhaps it has always existed—it may well be that centralising the meetings in one place may worsen, not improve the security problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, it may well be that the Belgians will regret the centralising of Council meetings as Brussels becomes the hated capital of the European Union.
	It would be absurd for me to press the amendment but it is a serious one. I shall certainly think about the matter between now and Report and I hope that the Minister will also think about it before Report because the European Council may very well be doing completely the wrong thing and it will regret that later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Howell of Guildford: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert "and the Declarations adopted by the Conference (other than Declaration 23 (5))"

Lord Howell of Guildford: Our concern here is with sub-paragraph (5) of the declaration we have just discussed. That sub-paragraph concerns the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is an appropriate moment for me to seek to clarify a confusion that arose about which the noble Baroness wrote to me. She wrote to me on two matters and I replied to her today on one of them. She may wish to read my reply before she raises it again. However, I hope that we can clear up the other matter that worried her.
	On Second Reading the noble Baroness said of the charter that,
	"It was not incorporated; it was not even attached to the treaty; and it is not referred to anywhere within the treaty".—[Official Report, 1/11/01; col. 1626.]
	At which point she then made a further comment not germane to that issue and I intervened and said,
	"I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. This may be a pedantic point, but the charter is referred to at page 78 of the treaty".
	The noble Baroness then generously said that she would give her officials a hard time the next day if that was the case. In fact, what I said was marginally wrong. I should have used the words "attached to the treaty" and not "of the treaty". Attached to the treaty the document certainly is in the Command Paper on the Treaty of Nice, which includes the protocols with the final acts and declarations.
	I apologise for having used the words "of the treaty" and not "attached to the treaty" However, I must slightly qualify my apology as, if the noble Baroness is to give her officials a hard time, she might still possibly do so for not including in her brief the point that, even though the charter is not attached to the treaty and it is not referred to anywhere within the treaty, a reference to the charter is attached to the treaty. That is a pretty fine point if I may say so. If she will accept that point in the spirit in which I make my apology I shall be content. As regards the other matter I mentioned, I hope that she will study my letter as that matter is not straightforward and no doubt we shall have to try to sort it out on another occasion.
	I turn to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I think that most people fear—perhaps some people welcome—the fact that the charter will become mandatory law. Already there are indications of that. Voices in the world of the European Court of Justice have indicated that they would take it into account in reaching their decisions. An excellent report by the European Union sub-committee of your Lordships' House made clear that the charter has been so drafted that it could easily be adopted in legally binding form. I believe that at one stage a Minister of State in the Foreign Office said it was no more important than Beano. Assurances have been given that it is just a reassertion of rights and a shop window and so on. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that there is a real desire in various European institutions and perhaps also in European member states to make this a mandatory set of rights.
	We believe that that is the wrong approach and we consider it to be an unconstructive approach for a number of important reasons. One is that it seems to confuse—we have touched on this in earlier debates—two sorts of rights. There are, indeed, great and important basic rights for humankind: rights to free speech, rights concerning the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary arrest, liberty under the law, the right to participate in free elections, and so on.
	Those are the necessities under which free societies and free markets operate and they are incorporated in the UN and other conventions. They are incorporated in the European Convention on Human Rights. They are the territory, if I may express it in that way, of the Council of Europe, which was set up under the inspiration of British Ministers, including the late Lord Kilmuir, in the post-war period. No one could object to those rights being reasserted. Whether the European Union feels that, on top of all the other assertions of these rights, it is necessary to join in the chorus is a marginal matter; I should have thought that it was a distraction from a now unnecessary addition—a fifth wheel, if one likes, on the coach.
	However, that is not where the charter stops. It then goes on to refer to a whole series of other, very important rights. However, they are rights which many of us would contend are important social priorities which should be settled—many are one group's priorities at the expense of another group—at national level through the legitimate democratic process. That is why people elect to send their Members of Parliament, in our case, to the other place and why we are mandated to seek to have a scrutinising and improving role in what comes out of the other place.
	Many issues which the European Charter of Fundamental Rights proceeds to elevate to the institutional supranational level are the stuff of our normal debates. If those rights are to be challenged, as often they are, it is our democratic, political process that should challenge them. They should not be frozen into some loftier and more remote arrangements and then woven into the law of the European Union and subsequently, of course, into our own laws by the back door. I refer to the rights to education, to conduct a business and to asylum and to rights for children, for the elderly—I become more and more interested in that as times goes on—rights to worker information, to worker consultation, access to placement services, paid parental leave, environmental protection, consumer protection, the right to petition and various other rights-based issues. They are all very important.
	In the pattern of our politics, and to some extent in this rights-based age in which more and more decisions are reached on the basis of claims of rights rather than through the more traditional ways of democratic politics—that is probably the fault of politicians, but it is the case—these are very much the currency of our debates and of our national politics.
	I cannot see, and I do not believe that many of my noble friends can see, why there is a need to turn these issues into a gigantic new charter, carrying all the declarations of rights into the centre of the European institutions and, via that, into the heart of the affairs of the various member states. I do not believe that that adds very much to the preservation or furthering of rights, good or less good, selfish or universal.
	The charter says:
	"Nothing in [it] shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms".
	I believe that in adding this superfluous list, some checks, damages, adverse effects and restrictions are placed on the unfolding and unending process of establishing people's rights and preserving their freedoms. It is my belief that, by pressing the concept of rights at far too remote a level, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not merely adding nothing; it is damaging to the debates which in modern politics are becoming more and more dominated by rights-based issues.
	Behind all of that is a different agenda which we have hardly discussed today, although it will come up increasingly in the coming weeks, and which was triggered by the Nice Council. That agenda involves the new goal of having a new European constitution. Ministers are already close to agreement on the composition of the relevant convention. We have been told—I am afraid that that is all—that the convention will be composed of representatives of national Parliaments (two representatives per country), governments of EU countries (one representative per government) and the European Parliament and the European Commission (one representative seat; I suppose that that is per country). Apparently, it has been agreed that the European Parliament will have 16 seats; that appears to involve one seat for the European Parliament and 15 for the countries. I suppose that some such arrangement is involved.
	It is a nice, cosy arrangement on which we have not really been consulted at all. Moreover, it will not work in that there has not really been a democratic exchange about how the shape of Europe should unfold; the arrangements will be more or less set on tramlines before the convention takes place. The arrangement will not be adequate in terms of parliamentary representation or involvement from this country; that would be achieved only if Ministers came back to this House and the other place regularly and continuously and told us what the debates were and how the arguments were going. However distinguished are the two Members who we send from our national Parliament, they will not be in a position to represent our concerns or views or to reflect the full span of our debate. The arrangement involves nominal not real democracy.
	Just a few weeks previously, the chairman of the convention will be chosen at Laeken. Various people have demanded that they should be that chairman. That argument continues—or it may have been settled by now; I am not up to date. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is intended to give shape to the new constitution.
	I believe that the concept—I am not universally supported in this—of trying to get a fixed constitution with a fixed set of barriers or lines that define competencies at the various levels of the EU, underpinned by the charter, involves a hopeless task. That is because life, conditions and issues change so fast that matters that are within the proper competence of the central European institutions one week or one month may be more appropriately dealt with by agencies or committees that are not at the institutional level. Alternatively, those matters might be dealt with in one institution rather than another, by agencies that are manned by national and institutional personnel or at the national level. The flow is ever more rapid in a network world. The chances of freezing the situation with competencies, charters and assertions of rights is forlorn and a distraction of energy from the other, more important, task that we have been discussing. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The discussion that the noble Lord initiated on the Charter of Fundamental Rights struck a note with me. We have to be careful before we call everything that one wants a "right". My view is that a right is very specific whereas a wish-list is quite different. I look forward to the Minister's response on that matter.
	I turn to the rest of Declaration 23.5, which would be eliminated by the amendment. If the amendment were agreed to, we should lose from among the tasks that the European Council has to take on the requirement that:
	"The process should address . . . how to establish and monitor more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and the Member States, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity".
	I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would be in favour of that. We should also lose the requirement to address,
	"a simplification of the Treaties with a view to making them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning".
	I should have thought that that, too, was rather desirable. We should also lose a discussion on,
	"the role of national parliaments in the European architecture".
	I deplore the use of the word "architecture", at least they do not call it "choreography" which is an even more modern word for such a matter. The role of national parliaments in the European architecture may also produce some rather interesting discussions into which those who wish to do so could put their all. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Howell, can tell us what he will do about the parts of the subsection that he may like as well as the parts that he plainly does not like.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I love a good debate, but occasionally my eyes float down towards the actual text of the amendment. Perhaps I can deal with the two points. First, as regards the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will be pleased to hear that I share the view that we should not put the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the treaty, now or later. I share his view on the substance of that point.
	I believe that the amendment is rather convoluted. Its effect would be that all the declarations that do not have treaty force would be carried into the European Communities Act 1972 under the definition of treaties. Declarations do not have treaty force, so I do not believe that that could be done. That would be the effect, except for this one paragraph. The rest would go into the European Communities Act 1972, although they are not actually treaties.
	We would simply have a little part left out, but the rest would remain there, including the conference in 2004. If this amendment were adopted, there would be no guidance at all for that conference. History has shown that intergovernmental conferences do far too much anyway, but this would give them the freest rein possible. It gives no indication at all about the issues that they may be asked to consider.
	The consequence of the amendment itself would be to create almighty confusion in the way in which our law operates in relation to treaties and declarations and to avoid giving any substantive guidance to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. For those reasons I do not believe that the amendment makes a great deal of sense. Of course, the point that was raised in debate is a substantive one and one to which we should pay attention, not just now but in 2004.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for tabling this amendment. There may be certain matters wrong with it, but it has enabled us to discuss the issue of the charter of fundamental rights. It is most unfortunate that that should have been brought forward. I cannot believe for one moment that Her Majesty's Government are happy that the matter has been discussed. I sincerely hope that they are not happy about M. Chirac's suggestion that it should be written in treaty form, not in 2004, but before then.
	I am sure that the Government will understand that the essence of this charter, the ideas behind it and its drafting are for the purpose of imposing a written constitution on the nations of Europe, including Britain. Such a written constitution runs completely contrary to our flexible constitution that gives people freedom to pursue their own affairs, constrained only by statute and the common law which can be altered to meet changing times and circumstances. That system has already been modified—I understand that—through the various EU treaties and very often, if not always, to the detriment of the British people and their constitution.
	One cannot go into all the provisions of the charter. But there are some that are patently absurd. For example, Article 2 states:
	"Everyone has the right to life".
	I thought that that was God's prerogative. Surely the EU will not apply the acquis communautaire to that as well? Then there is Article 48. That states:
	"Presumption of innocence and right of defence. 1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".
	The EU has made that impossible because under the sex discrimination laws the burden of proof is on the employer. In other words, he is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. So there are a number of absurdities. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, read a few of them out. I just wanted to give those two as an example. But the whole charter is riddled with absurdities. I sincerely hope that that will never be written to in any treaty. Indeed, we do not need a charter at all. We have so many damn charters that I do not think the lawyers can keep up with them in this country or worldwide.
	I turn to the discussions that will take place about the future of the European Union. It is all very well to say that there will be two representatives from each national parliament, but how will the people be represented? That is what I want to know. I feel quite sure that the two people who go from the British Parliament will be in favour of the European Union and its further development. There are at least 33 per cent of British people who would come out of the EU tomorrow. How will they be represented? There is a sceptical voice. How will that be put? It is no good people running away from that. It has been put in this House tonight as well as in the House of Commons and up and down the country in discussions, in people's homes, in pubs and in all kinds of places, and in public meetings which some of us are good enough to arrange. There has to be some other point of view put. I should like to know exactly how that will be put and by whom.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Howell's amendment. I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the Government's position on the charter. That is usual Euro-guff which appropriates to itself rights which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, are given by God or by existing laws of the nation states. It is absolutely nothing to do with the European Union whatever whether people's "Human dignity is inviolable". Is that anything to do with the European Union? Of course it is not.
	"Everyone has the right to life".
	That is nothing to do with the EU either.
	"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity".
	What on earth is the European Union talking about? It goes on and on.
	"No one should be held in slavery or servitude".
	Thank you very much Brussels. Then it rather pathetically states:
	"Everyone has the right of access to a free placement service".
	I do not know what that means. But it surely is not a fundamental human right given by the European Union. All these rights are either given by the nation states in their own laws or are rights which are agreed by the United Nations. It is nothing to do with the European Union. But it seems to be gathering them to itself. I think the suggestion by Mr Keith Vaz was to then put them on little plastic cards on his "Your Britain, your Europe tour" with Mr Eddie Izzard. We would all get little cards saying how wonderful the European Union is because it is giving us all these rights.
	Of course it is nothing to do with Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned these conflicts of interest.
	Article 21 refers to non-discrimination. It states:
	"Any discrimination based on any ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief . . . shall be prohibited".
	Article 23 states that,
	"the principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex".
	That seems to me to be giving people the right to discriminate. I look forward to the answer on that.
	This is a frightfully sorry mish-mash of a wish list. The European Union is trying to tell the luckless citizens that it represents that they should be grateful to the European Union for giving them those rights. It is a summary of rights that all the other member states in the European Union already have. We might divide on this amendment. We might be able to vote on it; it certainly should not be part of the treaty, but I am not clear about the technical position.

Lord Watson of Richmond: I wonder whether half of the noble Lord's objection to these sentiments, which he may call banal but which are certainly laudable, stems from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, earlier. He said that we hated the European Union and everything that comes out of it. As everything that is coming out of it is obviously laudable, presumably he cannot support it for that reason.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: The point is that these rights are given not by the European Union but by the nation states. The wool is being pulled over our eyes yet again.
	I am so grateful for being interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, because I missed a further point, which deals with property rights. Article 17 states:
	"No one may be deprived of his or her lawfully acquired possessions except in the public interest . . . The use of property may be regulated by law insofar as is necessary for the general interest".
	How will that be interpreted and dealt with? Someone may decide that it is in the public interest that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, be deprived of his property. Would that be right? Who will decide what is in the public or general interest? The whole charter is shot through with contradictions and flaws. Frankly, it is total rubbish and we should reject it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Since the noble Lord has been good enough to mention my position in this matter, perhaps I may put a few questions to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, if she is the Minister who will reply. I was not sure whether the noble Lord would pick up this particular hot potato. I am in a muddle as to who will reply. If the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is to reply, I am sure that the Committee will be grateful. I look forward to her reply in due course and the answers to the following questions in particular.
	I concur with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that it would be interesting to know the Government's attitude to the charter. Why is it necessary? Is it in addition to the European Convention on Human Rights, or will it compete with it in some way? Is it envisaged that there should be some kind of union of the two charters and the jurisdictions of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts? In other words, are the two charters competitive or will they come together?
	If the charter is to be enacted will it take precedence over our law? The Minister may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, that it should not become law, but if it does will it take precedence over our law, as has been suggested by people who are rather nervous of it?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like to help the noble Lord and the Minister. If it becomes part of the treaty it will become justiciable in the European Court of Justice, in which case it automatically overrides British law under Sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is an authority on these matters, but, if that is the case, I should prefer to hear it from the Minister because that will carry more authority in this Chamber.
	Next, which are the precise provisions of the charter that are superior to British law as it stands? If enacted, what rights does the charter give us which we do not already have? Do we really need lectures and charters on so-called human rights from bureaucrats in Brussels and the other nations of the European Union? Is this not an area in which we lead the world?
	I hope that I can give the Minister some hope by quoting an article from the proposed charter which is to be found in volume one of the brilliant analysis of the Treaty of Nice by the British Management Data Foundation. The Committee will be aware that the foundation has produced analyses of the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht which are the only versions that one can understand. One cannot understand the blue document that has been produced by the Foreign Office deliberately so that one—let alone the people—is not able to understand it. One cannot see what new bits are added by the Treaty of Nice to what was there before. I commend volume one to the Committee. I have placed a number of free copies in the Library so that anyone who wants to have it can do so. One sees produced in black and white, not Technicolor—that is a step forward—the glorious Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
	If true, Article 41 is a colossal step forward for humanity in these days when our democracy is clearly being strangled by bureaucracy. It gives us the right to good administration. Does the noble Baroness believe that that will happen? Article 41 provides in paragraph 1 that,
	"Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union".
	Pull the other one! It goes on to say in paragraph 2 that,
	"This right includes:
	the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;
	the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy"—
	and presumably also of the bureaucracy—
	"the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions".
	Paragraph 3 states:
	"Every person has the right to have the Community make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States".
	Paragraph 4 states:
	"Every person may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language".
	Bearing in mind the present situation in which the democracy of the United Kingdom has become entirely strangled by bureaucracy and bogged down in all manner of bureaucratic obfuscation, does the Minister believe that there is any hope in that clause? If it comes to pass it would be a glorious advance.
	My final question to the Minister is perhaps the most important. Once you have a declaration of this kind attached to the treaty, whether it is on page 78 or referred to elsewhere, is not the Luxembourg Court of Justice already taking into account in its judgments the content of this charter? The Luxembourg Court has already said that it is doing so. Therefore de facto the wretched thing is already with us. Is that so or is that a gross exaggeration which the Minister would like to put to rest?

Lord Lyell: I have paid close attention to the marvellous arguments of my two noble friends. Will the Minister point me in the right direction? Paragraph 2 of Article 17 refers to industrial property rights. A quarter of a century ago, I and others were dealing with the renewal of the law of patents in your Lordships' House. Can the Minister say—it may not be today—whether industrial property rights cover what I call intellectual property rights dealing with industry products? I think in particular of the pharmaceutical industry. I presume that the reference in Article 229a might well be dealing with patents which have gone through various stages in your Lordships' House, let alone in Europe. But does the reference to industrial property rights cover intellectual property rights?

Lord Grenfell: The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, spoke of rights enshrined in the charter that he would dismiss on the grounds that perhaps they would not be fulfilled. Do the following words ring a bell: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of justice? On those grounds, would he be ready to tear up the constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights?

Lord Monson: Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The actual phrasing is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I think that it is in order for me to answer the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It is difficult to do so quickly within the parameters of a debate such as this. However, I go further than the noble Lord. I query whether there are any such things as human rights when you come to think of it. What there are, of course—they are enshrined in the American Declaration of Independence, the constitution of the United States, and elsewhere—are human privileges which have been acquired with great effort and great sacrifice over many years. When they are enshrined with that sacrifice and endurance in such things as the Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States, they have a real value. When they are simply proclaimed in this airy manner by such a body as the bureaucracy in Brussels and the European Union I fear that they will have no value. They will add nothing to the privileges which we in this country are fortunate to enjoy. I fear that they will override—I ask the Minister to confirm it—the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom with the great privileges which we have built up with great sacrifice over many years. I fear that they are a lot of hot air and very damaging.

Lord Blackwell: I should like to add one or two points to the debate and to express my support for the intention behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howell. The issue under debate here is not so much the content of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the nature of the charter. However as exchanges in the debate have made clear, if we were to discuss it, more issues would be raised than we could do justice to at this point in our deliberations on the Bill.
	I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to establish the significance or otherwise of mentioning the charter in Declaration 23. Many noble Lords in the Chamber have far greater legal competence than I, but earlier points raised in discussion on the Bill suggested that there is a difference between the workings of legal processes on the Continent and those of the United Kingdom. Whereas in this country we are accustomed to legal processes which interpret the words of Acts of Parliament, it is traditionally more common on the Continent to interpret the intention behind legislation. I believe that we need to consider what significance may be placed on any words attached to publications from the European Union, in particular what might be used in the courts. That point returns to the final question put by my noble friend Lord Pearson.
	I have been struck by the words of the presidency conclusions of the Nice IGC. After welcoming the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the conclusion goes on to state that:
	"The European Council"—
	surely this must have some weight behind it if the European Council has reached a conclusion—
	"would like to see the Charter of Fundamental Rights disseminated as widely as possible amongst the Union's citizens".
	It goes on to say that,
	"the question of the Charter's force will be considered later".
	It is not clear to me how to interpret the fact that the European Council would like to see the charter disseminated widely, then read and adopted, without it being treated as a charter of some significance; namely, forming a part of the intention behind the law as it stands.
	I note that the European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino, also said recently that the drawing up of the charter is an extremely important issue for the European Union because if it was brought forward successfully, it would.
	"mark a definitive change in the Community which will move it away from the essential raison d'etre of its origins to become a full political union."
	Once again, statements made surrounding the declaration by those who must be regarded as having some authority in the dealings of the European Union suggest that, notwithstanding the fact that this intention is tucked away in a declaration, it is intended that it should be disseminated and noted by the people of the European Union. Given that, I endorse strongly the final question put by my noble friend Lord Pearson and would ask the Government what significance, if any, they believe should be attached to this.
	Finally, I should like to return to a point covered by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Howell. Under Declaration 23(5), it has been noted that the future conference should give consideration to the role of national parliaments in the European architecture. I may be alone on this, but I find it rather strange and worrying that we should be suggesting that a European Council of Ministers should be deliberating, and out of those deliberations presumably intending to produce, some laws or regulations which, from outside the United Kingdom, attempt to define, prescribe or redefine the role of our national Parliament. What on earth has it to do with the European Union what we choose to have as our national Parliament?
	I had a nai ve idea that Ministers from the United Kingdom went to these meetings as servants of the Crown and of the national Parliament. I find it very strange to see that in this declaration we are suggesting, and giving precedence perhaps to the notion, that our national Parliaments were in some way subservient to the European Union and the European Council and that they had some prerogative to decide and define what role they were going to set out for our national Parliaments.
	I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howell on those grounds as well, leaving aside the issue that we have discussed, namely, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I should like some assurance from the Minister that she sees things in a different light.

Lord Norton of Louth: I hope the Minister has plenty of paper because by now I suspect that the list of questions that have been put to her is growing and she might have difficulty in coping with all them in the time available.
	I wish to put two very quick and simple questions to the noble Baroness. First, it is my understanding that the Government themselves are quite clear as to the status of the charter. I was a member of the European committee which produced the report to which my noble friend referred. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave evidence to the committee and he was quite clear as to the status of the charter. If the Government are quite clear on that, why do they believe that an IGC is necessary to discuss that status?
	Secondly, could the Minister explain to me the logic of drawing up a charter and deciding its status subsequent to the event?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his opening remarks. The noble Lord is always extremely courteous. I very much look forward to receiving the letter he has sent me. I believe that he will find that the reference to the charter is attached to the final act of the conference and not to the treaty. I do not wish to prolong our exchanges on this matter any more painfully than does the noble Lord. Perhaps we can settle between us the matter of where the provision is attached. I believe that we can sort it out. As regards the other matter, I look forward to receiving the noble Lord's letter.
	The declaration on the future of Europe, which was agreed at Nice, encapsulates key commitments for which the United Kingdom Government fought very hard. Nice opens the way for enlargement with no need for further institutional change. Before the next IGC in 2004 there will be a deep and wide debate involving ordinary citizens throughout the European Union. The main agenda items for that conference should be, first, a more precise delimitation of powers between the EU and the member states reflecting the principle of subsidiarity; secondly, as regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the question of whether, and if so how, it should be incorporated into EU treaties; thirdly, simplification of the EU treaties to make them clearer and better understood without changing their meaning and, fourthly, the role of national parliaments in European architecture.
	This debate reflects what I have heard noble Lords from all sides of the House, irrespective of political allegiance, say they would like to see reflected in the way we consider the future of Europe. The declaration also makes it clear that in addressing these issues there is a need to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU and its institutions in order to bring them closer to the citizens of member states. I accept that that last point is not struck out by the amendment, but the four previous points—which are important—would be.
	This is the United Kingdom's agenda. By that I do not mean that it is the agenda of Her Majesty's Government but the agenda that I hear reflected all round the Committee in the contributions made by noble Lords on the role of Parliament. Even today we have discussed the importance of making treaties more easily understood and more transparent to individuals throughout the European Union.
	This is an agenda which not only this Government but successive British Governments have sought to place at the heart of the European debate. I pay tribute as much to the Conservative Party as to my own party in making that point. It is an agenda that will lead to the more efficient, more comprehensible and more accountable European Union that we want. But the amendment seeks to strike down not only the charter of rights but the whole of the agenda that so many noble Lords have said is important.
	The member states are already conducting their national debates on Europe. Some have set up new structures to do so; others, like the United Kingdom, are content with their existing arrangements. We are content because our arrangements are already very effective. In the United Kingdom, Ministers have been setting out the Government's view of the way forward. The Prime Minister did so in Warsaw late last year, and many of the priorities he identified are reflected in the Nice Declaration. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have each made keynote speeches on Europe in recent months. They and other government Ministers will continue to make the points about Europe.
	In addition, we have encouraged parliamentary debate on the European issue. There have been several such debates here and in another place since Nice. The debate today is an important part of the overall contribution to the way that Europe should go forward.
	We have encouraged the involvement not only of Parliament but of ordinary UK citizens, if I can so call them, through, for example, the activities of my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe, who is travelling round the country to make the case for Britain in Europe and to hear people's views. We have also encouraged involvement through the Internet, where the Government have been running a series of interactive on-line debates on the FCO website in which people can make their views known.

Lord Norton of Louth: I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness is looking at what is proposed for the next IGC and concentrating on the charter. She is making the point that this is the agenda we want to pursue. Given what her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place, is that really the case? In terms of the future of Europe, my understanding is that the Government are approaching the next IGC as a means of looking at the future of Europe and the way it should be going. The items adumbrated here are disparate and discrete items which do not go to the nub of what is the future goal of the European Union; of what is the whole purpose of the exercise.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am addressing the amendment. If the noble Lord looks carefully at the amendment, he will see that it is an amendment which seeks not only to strike out the charter of rights but to strike out how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and its member states. Yes, the amendment goes on to the charter of fundamental rights, but it seeks also to strike out the simplification of treaties and the role of national parliaments.
	I am simply making the point that whereas the noble Lord, Lord Howell, concentrated his remarks on the charter of rights, the amendment addresses all four issues—and in doing so it seeks to strike them all out. I was merely making the point to the Committee that, over and over again in your Lordships' House, noble Lords have said how important are the debates on these issues. You cannot say one thing in your Lordships' House and then, when the opportunity is offered to discuss those very matters, say, "No. We are sorry, we do not want it". I am asking for consistency.

Lord Norton of Louth: Will the Minister give way again?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I have answered the point raised by the noble Lord. He may not like it, but it is the answer.
	The conventions will produce options and ideas, but the final decisions will remain where they should be, with member states' governments in the international conference itself. Those decisions will be taken, as the EU Treaty rightly provides, by unanimity among member states and in accordance with their constitutional positions—which in the UK means a ratification procedure involving Parliament, as with the present treaty.
	The point that has excited most interest is the charter of rights. The Government believe in human rights, that people need to know what are those rights and that EU institutions must respect them. That is what the charter of rights proclaims it is intended to achieve. That is a worthy aim and to answer the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—yes, the Government support it. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, the charter is a political declaration. It cannot take precedence over our law because it is not the law. It is not in the present EU treaty. Nor is it referred to in the treaty itself.
	One can quote a variety of different sources. Perhaps some people would like the charter made law. I freely concede that the Commission and some member states want to make the charter legally binding and to incorporate it into the treaty, but we have not agreed to do that. Nor can there be any change in the status of the charter unless we and all member states agree, because the treaty requires unanimity.
	We have agreed that at the 2004 intergovernmental conference, consideration should be given to whether or not to incorporate the charter in the treaty and, if so, how. That is the mandate agreed by the Cologne European Council and the Treaty of Nice and we shall stick to it. I repeat the point that the charter's status cannot be changed without unanimity. The purpose of the present debate about the convention is to get the views of those in all parts of both Houses and to feed them through.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: That still leaves the question of the extent to which the charter in its present form is taken into account by the Luxembourg court when making its judgments. I believe that the Luxembourg court has said that it already takes the charter into account.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The charter is not law but courts may take a wide variety of issues into account. If the court chooses to take the charter into account inter alia, there is no reason why it should not do so. There is nothing exceptional in the charter. Why should it not be taken into account? The point is, the charter is not legally binding.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But the judgments of the court are legally binding. If the court takes the charter, in its present form and with its current status, into account in its judgments, the charter is already beginning to have a binding legal effect in the law-making procedure of the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I cannot agree that that follows. The judgments are legally binding but the charter may be one of a huge number of things taken into account and balanced in judgment. It may not always be entirely the overriding issue. Being able to take something into account and its being legally binding are two different things—as we discussed at Second Reading.

Lord Blackwell: The charter may be one of a number of things taken into account by a court, but the question for some of us on this side of the Committee is, what additional weight is the charter given by being taken into account among many other documents? If the charter is given additional status, weight and political authority by being declared an attachment to the treaty, the weighting concerns us.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: That is a matter for the court and it will be judged on a case by case basis—as I am sure the noble Lord would realise if he were not so keen on trying to persuade us all that this is legally binding. I cannot repeat too often that it is not legally binding. It may be taken into account, inter alia, with a number of other issues, and will always be judged on a case by case basis.
	I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Article 229A refers to individual property rights. I believe that that means that intellectual property rights in the UK are covered. However, I need to check the point. If I may, I shall do as the noble Lord suggested and write to him on the matter.
	To sum up, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wishes to consider how the views of those who believe as he does might be taken into account in the convention. If the noble Lord can persuade the usual channels through debates such as this one that there should be some participation in the convention to reflect that, it is a matter for him to pursue. However, the noble Lord's views are given a very fair airing in this place. We are all grateful to him for keeping us up to the mark on all these issues. I did hold a meeting on this matter in this House, which was announced in Hansard before the event. Those who wished to put their views on this point had an opportunity to do so to a Minister at first hand.
	The Government very much look forward to the debate about the future of the European Union. We believe that reform of the EU—so that it can continue to deliver what the citizens of Europe, and indeed of Great Britain, want— is very important. We approach the debate with a good deal of confidence. We have learnt since 1997 that our approach, which is pro-Europe and pro-reform, is one that works. The Nice treaty confirms that. So, too, does the agenda for the 2004 IGC which we agreed at Nice.
	We believe that the amendment seeks to strike down not only what the noble Lord concentrated on in terms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights but a far wider debate, one to which most Members of the Committee have already signed up in the contributions that they have made elsewhere about the importance of Parliament and of treaty reform. I hope that the Committee will see fit to reject the amendment.

Lord Howell of Guildford: How I miss Lord Shore of Stepney on these occasions. There was no one better than he at eloquently exposing the vanities and conceits of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the inappropriateness of its language and ambitions. But, sadly, he is no longer with us, so we shall have to do without him.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, suggested that I had used too scattered a type of shot to aim at this particular bird, and that there was a danger of shooting down other, more precious and valued wildfowl at the same time. When I heard that, I questioned myself as to why I had sought in the amendment to remove the whole declaration rather than merely the reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we have debated in considerable detail.
	Then, examining the words of paragraph 5, I began to have more confidence that maybe the shot was the right one. The process with which we are dealing is identified in earlier paragraphs as the deeper and wider debate that we wanted about the future of the European Union. A whole range of issues, many of which we have discussed earlier today, will be relevant to that. Indeed, there are many more problems in relation to European governance and the entire Community method, which is now under criticism, and the relationships between European institutions which will have to be swept up in that debate. One of our main criticisms is that these are relevant issues that should have been tackled at a treaty summit such as Nice but they were not. Instead, they were replaced by many measures that we think continued the old drift in the wrong direction instead of facing the new conditions of an enlarged and different kind of Europe.
	Having considered the issues, I thought that my aim had not been as wide as I had earlier feared. Putting aside for the moment the status of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we wanted dropped from the declaration, there are three other goals. First, how can we establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of powers between the European Union and member states? I spoke to that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, will recall.
	I cast some scepticism on the general ambition of freezing for all time the line of delimitation of powers between the Union and member states because the world is not like that any more. Even now, a range of decisions and issues are handled some weeks by European institutions, other weeks by national agencies and committees and other weeks by mixed levels of officials between institutions at the European and national level. I am sure that the noble Baroness has made a study of that. Some superb studies have been produced, particularly by the European Policy Forum, showing how the pattern of decision-making ceases to conform to the hierarchical idea that competencies can be defined at one level or another. The world is no longer like that. That is yesterday's world of hierarchy and static conditions which no longer exists. I should not shed any tears if that was left out of the declaration.
	We have dealt with the status of the charter. The third point is the simplification of treaties to make them clearer without changing their meaning. It is sad that the British intelligentsia has failed to engage in the debate that is happening all over Europe. People are beginning to question whether the Monnet Community method, having succeeded for 40 or 50 years, is still right and whether the preamble to the original Treaty of Rome should be frozen in time or whether the debate should be reopened and the concept of ever-closer union questioned. These questions are not raised just by Euro-sceptics or Europhobes. Highly focused people who want the Europe of the future to unite and work better are engaged in the debate. Stamping that out by putting in the phrases without changing their meaning will close off a range of lively debate that we have a duty to participate in, so I would shed no tears over that.
	The final point is the role of national Parliaments in the European architecture. I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Blackwell. Can the process really do that? Will national Parliaments have a sufficient voice in the convention to have their say? That means more than just being told what their role is by some convention. We need to establish what powers should be returned to them in order that the missing democratic thread in the process of the European initiatives, which are racing forward on every front, can be restored.
	The European Parliament has its part to play but, as we have argued repeatedly, that does not satisfy the democratic deficit. That requires more than just talking vaguely about the role of national Parliaments; we have to give power of initiative and of early, pre-legislative scrutiny of community instruments and initiatives back to national Parliaments, where it belongs. Until that happens, the draining away of legitimacy and democratic validation will continue.
	Everyone knows that that is happening. Even the European Commission, in its governance White Paper, recognised that process. It went on to make some futile and inadequate propositions about how to stem the bleeding. It is failing and will fail because it is still talking in the language of the hierarchy and of somehow handing down by subsidiarity or by central view-making to the nation states certain decisions and views as it thinks appropriate.
	We know that the subsidiarity idea was well meant but it has failed. It has been said that the only responsibility that has been subject to the subsidiarity process over the several years since Maastricht is the treatment of animals in zoos. That is the one provision or decision that has been subsidiarised. Otherwise, the process has failed to meet the growing concern about the democratic legitimacy of the Union institutions.
	I shed no tears that my amendment aims a little wider than was intended and raises all sorts of fundamental issues that we should certainly discuss further. Having said that, I see that the hour is late. We have covered those matters before and will want to consider many of them again in much more detail. Against that background, and with that consideration in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to.
	House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.